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.
Originally posted by im_being_censored
What caused this faint "vert tail-like" impression in the grass skeptics?
Seems like you guys agree that there is no way it could have been caused by Flight 93's tail section slamming down on it at 580mph and shattering into millions of pieces so small you can't see them.
So that leaves you with quite a dilemma:
1. What caused that "vert tail-like" impression in the grass that's shaped like a 757's tail?
2. Where is the marks Flight 93's tail section left if it hit that soft patch of ground so hard that it was essentially obliterated by the soft ground?
Originally posted by IvanZana- The wing scars arent caused by wings. The scar was there pre-911.
- The verticle tail scar is not even that, it too was present pre911.
- Sooooo, in conclusion..... something made a bomb crater in a pre-exsisting earthworks scar.
Originally posted by IvanZana
Sooooo, in conclusion..... something made a bomb crater in a pre-exsisting earthworks scar.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Where's the burned grass from the bomb going off?
No burned grass = no bomb or any other explosive device.
Just give up now, the fairy tale stories about bombs being used are thoroughly debunked now.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Originally posted by IvanZana
Sooooo, in conclusion..... something made a bomb crater in a pre-exsisting earthworks scar.
Where's the burned grass from the bomb going off?
No burned grass = no bomb or any other explosive device. It is irrefutable proof that there was NO BOMB used to make that crater.
You cannot refute this or explain why the grass isn't burned.
Just give up now, the fairy tale stories about bombs being used are thoroughly debunked now.
Originally posted by IvanZana
The theory that flight 93 crashed in shanskville has been debunked for years now. There is no evidence that says that a fully fueled comercial airliner went down in Shanksville on 911.
To a couple of new viewers out there, realize there are government workers who are paid to lie and obsefucate the truth such as the 2 or 3 debunkers who have failed to uphold the official story here at ats.
Originally posted by im_being_censored
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Where's the burned grass from the bomb going off?
No burned grass = no bomb or any other explosive device.
Just give up now, the fairy tale stories about bombs being used are thoroughly debunked now.
OK, so we got 757's loaded with fuel and bombs being impossible to cause the Shanks crater.
I'm cool with that. Do you support an investigation now Seymour?
Originally posted by IvanZana
"No burned grass = plane crash" - Seymore buttz
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Originally posted by IvanZana
"No burned grass = plane crash" - Seymore buttz
BTW, where's all the dirt that would have been thrown 10's of meters out of the hole by a bomb? Or are you avoiding that very obvious hole in your hypothesis?
No thrown dirt = NO BOMB in Shanksville.
Burned grass and plane parts = FL 93 crashed is Shanksville.
Congratulations Ivan, you're doing great.
Originally posted by sir_chancealot
I grew up about 500 yards from.......
Originally posted by IvanZana
Originally posted by sir_chancealot
I grew up about 500 yards from.......
[SNIP]
Everything you claimed is a lie.
How come everytime a debunker gets burned on this thread they have to call in a " I was there" forum member to clarify it.
I call bs.... nice try.... I have seen all the evidence and your full of it.
Originally posted by IvanZana
No thrown dirt = NO BOMB in Shanksville.
Burned grass and plane parts = FL 93 crashed is Shanksville.
But wait you just said there was no burnt grass.