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

Hooper doesnt have the basic knowledge to understand how things work. Go out side, drop a small ball bearing into sand, crater is always bigger than the object that created it. Now whip it at a 45 degree angle, observe crater.

No one can be that ignorant to basic physics.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911

 

And don't forget, that crater is a lot bigger than it initially would have been if a burrowing plane caused it because it's, officially, a filled-back-in-hole, so that would increase its diameter.

Do you actually read what you write? The hole is bigger than it initially would have been? Burrowing plane? And again sorry, but there is no "officially" in there at all. Finally, are you saying that a hole increases in diameter as you fill it back in?

Do you actually read what I write? Yes hooper, if you dropped a rock in snow and some of the snow fell back in on the hole the burrowing rock made, the diameter of the hole would be larger than if none of the snow fell back in the hole. Grade school science.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Hooper doesnt have the basic knowledge to understand how things work. Go out side, drop a small ball bearing into sand, crater is always bigger than the object that created it. Now whip it at a 45 degree angle, observe crater.

No one can be that ignorant to basic physics.

edit on 10-11-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

Now take the ball bearing and shoot it out of a rifle. Now change the ball bearing to a nail. Now change the sand to soil at 98% compaction. Now change the soil to 90% compaction. Now change to soil to concrete. Now change speed from 700 fps to 500 fps. Now change the nail to ping pong ball. Now change the soil to mud. Now change.....

Different conditions, different outcomes. There is one outcome for each set of conditions. Not one standard outcome for all sets of conditions.

reply to post by hooper


So did the following not happen there:

- Most of a 757 burrowed
- ground caved back in on itself

He is an demonstration to help out poor friend hooper understand.

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper

So did the following not happen there:
- Most of a 757 burrowed

No that did not happen. The plane did not stop mid crash and dig a little hole. That is what burrowing means.

- ground caved back in on itself

I don't even know what you mean. Ground caving in on itself? That really doesn't make any sense. That sounds like one of those "was the fuel on the top of ground when it exploded" non-sequitors.

More illustration to help our friend hopper understand the basics.

Originally posted by hooper

No that did not happen. The plane did not stop mid crash and dig a little hole. That is what burrowing means.

OK, Mr. Semantics, what did it do?

I don't even know what you mean. Ground caving in on itself? That really doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, I forgot you skeptics need extra help understanding. Think of the examples S.H. and I gave you about the rock dropped in sand or snow and some of the sand or snow falling back in on the hole the rock just created through it. Or think why no permanent hole forms when you drop a rock into a bucket of water. Same principle really.

reply to post by ATH911

OK, Mr. Semantics, what did it do?

I don't know. There is no official documentation that covers that minutia and I wasn't there - were you?

Sorry, I forgot you skeptics need extra help understanding. Think of the examples S.H. and I gave you about the rock dropped in sand or snow and some of the sand or snow falling back in on the hole the rock just created through it. Or think why no permanent hole forms when you drop a rock into a bucket of water. Same principle really.

Yep. Exactly. Same principle. Sand vs. snow vs. water. Different conditions yield different outcomes. We know approximately the outcome at Shanksville. Please prove why that is not the outcome for the event stipulated. Emphasis on PROVE.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

He is an demonstration to help out poor friend hooper understand.

edit on 10-11-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

That is an excellent demonstration of the outcome when you shoot those objects, at those speeds into that material. So that proves beyond the shaow of doubt that....

Well I guess that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt the outcome for those conditions.

Let me ask you this - in that video I think it showed three projectiles being fired into that material. Do you believe the amount of material disturbed was EXACTLY the same each time. EXACTLY?

Are there any skeptics who know how UA93 supposedly crashed who can actually contribute some kind of meaningful debate to this thread instead of just troll?

Originally posted by ATH911
Are there any skeptics who know how UA93 supposedly crashed who can actually contribute some kind of meaningful debate to this thread instead of just troll?

Yes, Flight 93 was hijacked by four al-Qaeda terrorists as part of the September 11 attacks. It subsequently crashed into a field near Shanksville in Stonycreek Township in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, during an attempt by some of the passengers to regain control.

Next question, please.

Originally posted by ATH911

Well, my posts do take a certain amount of intelligence to understand.

It doesn't take intelligence to understand what you wrote. It takes telepathy. It literally makes no sense, except to you.

So what was your complaint about my interpretation of the OS?

And what is the correct version?

What do you mean "the correct version"? Nobody knows. We can piece together what happened from reports, witnesses and photos of the scene. But there isn't a big leather-bound book somewhere with "What Happened - the OS" written on the cover.

If you choose to surmise that there couldn't have been an explosion when a massive jet smashed into the ground at high speed then that's your business. Most people don't share your difficulty.

Originally posted by ATH911

The plume in the Berkebile video is the same grey color (grey?!) as the HUUUUUUUUGE grey plume (grey?!) in the McClatchey photo. Shouldn't they be different color according to your guy's logic?

Not necessarily. Why do you think that?

Why don't you find a video of a non-9/11 meduim-to-large plane crash to compare the smoke from the explosion?

Why?

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Next question, please.

Yes, try reading what I asked for:

"who know how UA93 supposedly crashed"

Meaning (cause I know you'll get it wrong about what I'm asking for) describe the details of how the plane was when it touched the ground, what part of the plane touched first, what started happening to the plane after it hit, when did the explosion occur, where was most of the wreckage when all the pieces settled.

Pretend you're writing it for an NTSB report.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

It doesn't take intelligence to understand what you wrote. It takes telepathy. It literally makes no sense, except to you.

No truther was confused about what I said. Why is it always you skeptic who are confused what I said?

What do you mean "the correct version"?

Nobody knows. We can piece together what happened from reports, witnesses and photos of the scene.

Cool. Let's see what you got.

If you choose to surmise that there couldn't have been an explosion when a massive jet smashed into the ground at high speed then that's your business. Most people don't share your difficulty.

See, this is where you keep showing your ignorance. I've NEVER said I don't understand how a plane could explode from crashing into the ground and a speed like that. Please read my OP before you make yourself look anymore foolish.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Not necessarily. Why do you think that?

Maybe you missed my "according to your guy's logic"?

Why?

To test your camera angle/lighting theory.

reply to post by ATH911

I've NEVER said I don't understand how a plane could explode from crashing into the ground and a speed like that. Please read my OP before you make yourself look anymore foolish.

So....you understand why planes full of fuel explode when they crash but can't understand how planes could explode when they crash? Really, you're very, very confused. Try to explain why you don't think Flight 93, which is a plane by the way, exploded.

Originally posted by hooper

So....you understand why planes full of fuel explode when they crash but can't understand how planes could explode when they crash?

No, you're very, very confused.

reply to post by ATH911

Yes, try reading what I asked for:

"who know how UA93 supposedly crashed"

Did try reading it, it keeps giving who me how a headaches. So let me guess, you want to know who knows how Flight 93 crashed? And what do you mean by how? The events that lead up to the hijacking? The events that lead to the crash? Or do you just want someone to give you the minutia of the impact?

If its the last one, well there is no official text describing it. So have fun, let your incredulity be your guide.

Originally posted by hooper
Or do you just want someone to give you the minutia of the impact?

Love how you like using the word "minutia" as to somehow try to minimize the importants of what I'm asking. Makes me think of this scenario:

Builder: Are you sure this will have enough load bearing strength?
Architect: You are so caught up in the minutia of things. It's steel. It's strong. What's the problem?


Look hooper, my threads require a certain amount of intelligence. If you can't handle that, then better luck on other people's threads.