Shanksville pics..?

a reply to: Phage

Nor is there evidence that anything you have said about yourself on ATS is factual. Same goes for me.

I am just making an observation.

Extending that, there is no evidence that images of men walking on the Moon actually show men walking on the Moon. Right?

This thread is not about the moon landing, right?

Just because someone post a photo of something with no evidence to when, where, time of date, opens the door for anything. Right?

a reply to: Informer1958

I am just making an observation.

No, you discounted a photograph posted in response to a question. I made no claims of the provenance of the photograph for a reason. Feel free to dispute it other than saying "there is no evidence."

Just because someone post a photo of something with no evidence to when, where, time of date, opens the door for anything. Right?

Just because you say your families' land was "stolen" opens the door for anything, right? Just because I say I've been hang gliding for 2/3's of my life opens the door for anything, right?

There is no evidence of anything, right?

a reply to: Phage

No, you discounted a photograph posted in response to a question.

This could be bone yard scraps, there is no evidence this piece belong to said aircraft.

No, I did not discount anything, I just gave an "opinion" about it.

So whats your point?

a reply to: Informer1958
My point is that a question regarding engines was asked.
My point is that I presented an image in response.

Is your point that the image is not from the crash site? Is your point that then engine remnants are not from the aircraft?

a reply to: Phage

Is your point that the image is not from the crash site? Is your point that then engine remnants are not from the aircraft?

Are you saying the image is from the crash site?

Is your point that then engine remnants are from aircraft?

a reply to: Informer1958
As far as I know, yes. To both questions.
Do you know different?

a reply to: Phage

As far as I know, yes. To both questions.

Based on what creditable evidence?

a reply to: Informer1958
As I said, as far as I know.
Feel free to refute.

a reply to: Phage

As I said, as far as I know.
Feel free to refute.

I already gave an "opinion" to your question. Is there anything else?

a reply to: Informer1958
An opinion is not a refutation.
But yours is duly noted, and is no surprise.

a reply to: Phage

An opinion is not a refutation.
But yours is duly noted.

As I said, as far as I know.

And as far as you know your questions answer was not any proof to the contrary.

a reply to: WeRpeons

What's so silly about it? The wings sliced through the side of the building on the twin towers and left a noticeable slice on the exterior wall. The towers were constructed with exterior steel beams around the perimeter of the building. If a plane and it's wings can slice through steel beams, I'm sure at the very least it would have created some damage along a concrete wall. Take into consideration the engines of the plane are attached to the wings which adds to the force of the impact.

The plane did not "slice" through the exterior wall panels

The exterior wall of the WTC was built in 30 foot sections - the beams in the section were fastened together by
spandrel plates welded to the beams. The sections were bolted together

On impact the plane snapped the welds and bolts off - there is a picture of a wall section lying in street after falling
from WTC

a reply to: FlyingFox

It would appear this was one of those planes like hit the pentagon.

You remember that don't you?

The wings just folded back as they and the engines disappeared through a little hole.

I hope this isn't deemed "off topic." But it's a very memorable recollection of 9/11 for me.

In trying to get back to "normal" (the audit company I worked for was HQ in one of the World Trade Center buildings so no work for a couple of weeks, until other regions could rebuild files) I took my youngest son out to lunch at the McDonalds on US 30 in Hempfield Twp., PA It was a warm September day and we ate outside at the PlayPlace.

All of a sudden this roar came up. People were understandably skittish. There were three black helicopters and they were lead and followed by USAF copters. The tables literally shook. People, at MCDs, In the parking lot, started waving, hands, ball caps, even napkins. GWBush had toured the crash site and must have flying back to Pittsburgh for AF1. I can't explain it, but the tone changes in that tiny little PlayPlace as we saw them fly west.

And again, hope not off topic.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Phage

As far as I know, yes. To both questions.

Based on what creditable evidence?

The image is from the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui

Link to exhibit image

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Phage

What's this?
911review.com...

This could be bone yard scraps, there is no evidence this piece belong to said aircraft.

It's exhibit P00060 that was entered in to evidence in the United States v Zacarias Moussaoui case. All 1202 exhibits can be viewed on line.

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

What is a jet supposed to do when hitting the ground at high speed. I think the term used is ATOMIZES?

Seen other people post this test footage to prove a point here at ATS.

0:54
F4 Phantom Jet Hits Concrete Wall at 500 MPH
YouTube - Aug 4, 2008

youtu.be...

Please tell me what is unusual about the Shanksville crash site.

Especially when it's been pointed out at ATS planes tend to atomize when hitting solid objects at high speed.

Sorry it's mythbusters, but this video shows how fast 500 mph really is.

3:18
Mythbusters Plough Through a Car at 500 mph
YouTube - Mar 4, 2010

youtu.be...

Oh, the plough atomizes too when hitting the backing wall.

originally posted by: neutronflux
What is a jet supposed to do when hitting the ground at high speed. I think the term used is ATOMIZES?

Seen other people post this test footage to prove a point here at ATS.

0:54
F4 Phantom Jet Hits Concrete Wall at 500 MPH
YouTube - Aug 4, 2008

youtu.be...

Please tell me what is unusual about the Shanksville crash site.

Especially when it's been pointed out at ATS planes tend to atomize when hitting solid objects at high speed.

so jets always atomize when they hit the ground?

do you think that a plane hitting a concrete wall meant to withstand a nuclear blast is the same as a plane crashing into the ground in the woods?

a reply to: facedye

When it smacks into the ground nose first. As the plane pushes nose first, it's just going to compact the ground and push into layers of growing density.

Passat, it's a secret. Top soil is compactable, with the lower layers dense enough to support building foundations. Especially if the ground is rocky or holds large deposits of clay. Maybe it's composed of both rocks and clay.

Psst, another secret. Sand is almost self compacting and is very dense. I heard sand can stop bullets and shrapnel when used in sand bags.


Point is. The ground is hard. It's going to fragment the plane if the plane strikes at an angle that doesn't allow for the crashing plane to glance off into another direction.

Also, large parts of planes have the ability to burn up if the crash results in a fire and allowed to burn uncontrolled.

If you were as critical of the movement and spent as much time questioning the snake oil salespersons like Richard Gage, Steve Jones, and Dr Wood, you would be closer to the truth. 911 conspiracies, they are like a religion.