9/11 POLL : Do You Believe a Boeing 757 Crashed in Shanksville?

reply to post by Point of No Return


Boy Oh Boy!!! You can Google, cut and paste! So clever. Sorry, if something causes another thing to explode it is then a detonator, the thing that exploded is then an explosive. Detonate and explode are verbs.

Now that's by definition, not connotation. In common connotation we associate detonators with a class items that are generally used in conjuction with explosives to cause the materials in the explosives to accelarate to a point where they are no longer stable and expand explosively.

Its all a moot point anyway. The plane exploded and it didn't need a detonator. It was a fuel explosion and needed only a spark to initiate. Just like in the cylinders of you car. You don't have tiny little detonators in the cylinders in your car do you? Yet there is an explosion in them a couple of times a second. And no the spark plug is not a detonator.

This image was taken moments after the crash before any clean up.



This next image was taken shortly after the crater was created. As you can see what is usually mistaken for wing indents were not caused by wings or anything that occurred on the morning of September 11th. Therefore the crater was created ontop of a pre-exsisting ditch or impression.

This next image proves the above statement These IMAGES WERE TAKEN BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION OR CLEAN UP REGARDLESS IF THERE IS TENTS SET UP.


Point is proven. The crater was not caused by a Boeing 757.


Debunker response - Did you get that bla bla yet, have you proved that bla bla yet... still waiting.... on bla bla.

reply to post by hooper

Boy Oh Boy!!! You can Google, cut and paste! So clever. Sorry, if something causes another thing to explode it is then a detonator, the thing that exploded is then an explosive. Detonate and explode are verbs.

Ehm, Didn't i say the exact same thing?

Now that's by definition, not connotation. In common connotation we associate detonators with a class items that are generally used in conjuction with explosives to cause the materials in the explosives to accelarate to a point where they are no longer stable and expand explosively.

Again, that's what I said.

Its all a moot point anyway. The plane exploded and it didn't need a detonator.

Your whole post is moot. I never said the plane needed a detonator.

Posted by Doc Velocity:

This is called the Jet Cone Effect, when the total output of a detonation is folded back onto itself and is spent in ONE DIRECTION. The effect amplifies the blast output exponentially.

He is comparing a shaped charge, wich detonates, not explodes, to the explosion of an aircraft hitting the ground.

Furthermore, he says that the conical impact crater directed the blast straight back out.

The same with the shaped charge, he thinks the conical shape directs the blast, and gives it more blast output.

This is completely wrong, and therefore his theory is complete nonsense.

The blast direction is the opposite of the side of detonation, the conical shaped material is just there so that it turns inside out and forms a hot jet wich has more penetration power than just air pressure from a normal detonation.

Again, this has nothing do to with a conical impact crater, it's just stupid.

In that split second, the conical impact crater DIRECTED the blast straight back out in the opposite direction.

Utter BS.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Point of No Return

The blast direction is the opposite of the side of detonation.....

There was no "detonation" point when flight 93 exploded. There was no detonator. The kinetic energy stored in the plane moving at about 60% the speed of sound created the conical crater we see in the photos. Before the plane could proceed any further on its downward trajectory the structure of the plane began to deconstruct then the atomized fuel from the wings exploded, the conical shape crater redirect and amplified the explosion backwards (up) basically causing the remaing physicality of the plane and passengers to be ripped apart.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

9/11 POLL : Do You Believe a Boeing 757 Crashed in Shanksville?

Of course a plane did not crash in Shanksville, there were no planes used in the attacks of 9/11.

reply to post by 767doctor

He was taken out of context by a conspiracy peddler. Upon close inspection of the full transcript of the article, the author left out a very important piece of information just after the "no airplane" comment..

Blatant lies, you liar!

I'm not even talking about an article, got the video right here:

www.youtube.com...

A transcript wich is not completely correct but shows what was said:

“There was no plane,” Ernie Stull, mayor of Shanksville, told German television in March 2003: “My brother-in-law and a good friend of mine were the first ones there,” Stull said. “They were standing on a street corner in Shanksville talking. Their car was nearby, so they were the first here—and the fire department came. Everyone was puzzled, because the call had been that a plane had crashed. But there was no plane.” “They had been sent here because of a crash, but there was no plane?” the reporter asked. “No. Nothing. Only this hole.”

I urge everybody to watch this video.

"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."

Do you have the source for this?

He was interviewed for a second time, a while later, where he changed his story, like I said before.

I couldn't find a link to this, but I'm pretty sure your qoute is from that second interview, wich was an article.

I ask you, why would he lie the first time?

Yup, got cherry picked by a "fake but accurate" style of reporter. Just what we've come to expect from truthers.

Yep, another shill busted at lying. I actually got the live video, with the part we are talking about completely unedited.

What do you have to say for yourself liar?

reply to post by Point of No Return


Another case of "argumentum youtubum absurdium"??

(That phrase is not yet trademarked, so consider it open-sourced and free to all for use, right now).

reply to post by hooper

There was no "detonation" point when flight 93 exploded. There was no detonator.

That's exactly what I'm saying, for the third time. Are you being this thick on purpose?

It's exactly why Doc's comparison to a shaped charge is bogus.

The blast direction is the opposite of the side of detonation.....

This was in relation to the shaped charge example, I like how you took it out of it's context.

Nice tactics, a bit obvious though.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Another shill?

What's so absurd about my post, you can see I'm telling the truth with your own eyes in the video.

Quit the BS.

(That phrase is not yet trademarked, so consider it open-sourced and free to all for use, right now).

Why would anyone want to use that?

Do you think it's funny or witty?

It's not.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Point of No Return


Because you used JUST the YT video, and the "transcript" (which you even admit isn't quite correct??)

The point that was made, earlier is....the YT (and by default, the portion in the video that was printed int he 'transcript') was EDITED, and the entirity of the statement made was intenionally misleading as result.

Relying (absurdium) on the YT solely is, well....absurd.

reply to post by weedwhacker


The transcript has a few words that don't match, the important passages are accurate. Somebody typed the transcript from memory, I just posted it here quickly because I knew charqacters like you won't even watch the video.

If you had watched the video, you would've known that the transcript is quite accurate in what was said.

Relying (absurdium) on the YT solely is, well....absurd.

What? Is footage of the conversation not good enough in the argument about that conversation?

Get lost.


[edit on 31-5-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Point of No Return


How difficult is it to understand?

A video of his initial (but incomplete) impression is bandied about on YouTube.

Later there is more in-depth explanation. EITHER the YT clip was edited to remove his subsequent remarks, or his remarks weren't videotaped, but were merely recorded, and ocnveyed by a reporter in print, later.

I suspect (based on your intransigence here) that this may seem 'new' to you, but indeed, it is not to many here. This is well-understood by most, by now.

It is yet another example of some creative 'twisting' of the events by those who wish to keep the 'truth movement' alive.

Dig deeper, get into other sources than YT (there ARE a few...some good rebuttals on YT, by people who think rationally, and do not alter, twist, lie or just parrot other people's work, as most of the YT videos do).

I'll go look, I do know of one on YT, username "RKOwens" or something like that, who does a great job. Unfortunatley he gets drowned out by the acolytes and spammers, on YT.
~~~~~
Oh, I forgot to point this out, from above ... classy:

Originally posted by Point Of No Return
Get lost.

[edit on 31 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

"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."

The poster I responded to said that this qoute was removed from Ernies's interview.

This is obviously not removed from the video. The video was taken years after the crash, are you suggesting that he said in that interview that two turbines were just found?

Uh oh. I don't think so.

Like I said there a two interviews. The first one was the video, from wich the above statement couldn't have been removed.

The video is legit.

Later, he was interviewed a second time, he then came up with another story, wich is probably where the above qoute came from, I asked for the source, I would like to know.

He lied in one of the interviews, why would he lie the first time.

Also watch the vid again, look at his reaction as he says, no plane, just a hole in the ground.

How he raises his hands in confusion and disbelief, he clearly knows sometihing doesn't add up.

Oh, I forgot to point this out, from above ... classy:

Spreading lies and disinfo isn't classy either.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Point of No Return]

Originally posted by Point of No Return

Yep, another shill busted at lying. I actually got the live video, with the part we are talking about completely unedited.

What do you have to say for yourself liar?

Here's my source, skippy.

In the book, Wisnewski describes the scene as follows: "And then it becomes apparent that something is troubling Ernie Stull. On the one hand, it's what the leading authorities of the United States - the FBI, the CIA, the President - have claimed. On the other hand, it's what his brother-in-law and his friend told him. 'There was no airplane,' says Ernie Stull, speaking partly to us and partly as if he were listening to his own voice, checking to see if he had heard himself correctly. One and half years after the catastrophe, he still shakes his head, completely at a loss, and helplessly extends his arms: 'No airplane'."

When Der Spiegel confronts Stull with the English translation of these passages in the book and the film script, the man is speechless: "My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes."

Wisnewski disputes accusations that he manipulated Stull and mentions a statement Stull made in the WDR film, in which his description was correctly reproduced: "The airplane was completely destroyed. Bang! It crashed into the ground and disintegrated - completely."

Although this is correct, it amounts to hair-splitting, since Wisnewski and Brunner also suggest in the film that there was no aircraft. Quote: "A Boeing 757 and all of its passengers in that hole? The layperson is astonished, while the experts remain silent. Or could there be another, far more terrible truth to the matter?"

The authors use two photographs to insinuate just what this truth might be. One is a snapshot taken in Shanksville on September 11th. It depicts a mushroom cloud over the crash site. The other photo depicts a mushroom cloud that appeared after a bomb was dropped in Afghanistan. Quote from the film script: "...exactly the same mushroom-shaped column of smoke in Shanksville. Wasn't it really a bomb or a missile?"

The audacity with which ARD journalist Wisnewski assembled his own truths is evident in a translated segment of the interview provided by WDR at Der Spiegel's request. According to the WDR copy, the portion of the film script quoted above is followed by this statement made by Stull on the original tape:

"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."

No airplane?

Given this statement, it remains a mystery as to how WDR executives can continue to claim that Stull's "statements were not misquoted or distorted in the film." It is also quite telling that "Neville from the farm" does not appear in the film, nor does anyone else who could possibly refute the authors' claims.

"Mr. Stull did not tell us anything about witnesses who had seen the plane," Wisnewski told Der Spiegel. That's certainly possible, but they do exist, and they're not difficult to find.

One of them is Lee Purbaugh, a laborer from Shanksville. The moment that seemed "like an eternity" to him has remained deeply embedded in his memory. He says that an "unbelievably loud roar" caused him to look up at the sky, where the giant airplane suddenly seemed suspended "practically over my head." Seconds later, at 10:06 a.m., the Boeing plunged into the ground.

Another witness is named Eric Peterson. He was standing in his store when he heard the noise of the plane's engines. He stepped outside and watched the United Airlines jet until it disappeared behind a nearby hill. Then a fireball erupted. Peterson immediately jumped into his SUV and drove to the site of the crash.


Like I said, fake but accurate truther reporting. It's pretty bad when even "Der Spiegel" is calling you out on questionable journalism.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by 767doctor]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

How difficult is it to understand?

A video of his initial (but incomplete) impression is bandied about on YouTube.

Later there is more in-depth explanation. EITHER the YT clip was edited to remove his subsequent remarks, or his remarks weren't videotaped, but were merely recorded, and ocnveyed by a reporter in print, later.

I suspect (based on your intransigence here) that this may seem 'new' to you, but indeed, it is not to many here. This is well-understood by most, by now.

It is yet another example of some creative 'twisting' of the events by those who wish to keep the 'truth movement' alive.

Dig deeper, get into other sources than YT (there ARE a few...some good rebuttals on YT, by people who think rationally, and do not alter, twist, lie or just parrot other people's work, as most of the YT videos do).

"Well, yeah.."

He ain't getting it in, no matter how many ways you try to explain it. It just doesn't compute that the mayor was talking long before the this particular video segment begins. It's obvious when the audio starts in this clip because his first sentence starts with "Well, yeah..."(0:16) meaning he was already in the middle of reciting his story. I could understand if he had been talking a full 9 minutes into this clip before his "no plane" bombshell, but it happened like 30 seconds after the audio starts.

Lame.


And to top it all off, the mayor is talking about an airplane in the crater. Sheesh, watch your own videos Point Of No Return

[edit on 31-5-2010 by 767doctor]

reply to post by 767doctor


Thanks.

So you are saying this:

“There was no plane,” Ernie Stull, mayor of Shanksville, told German television in March 2003: “My brother-in-law and a good friend of mine were the first ones there,” Stull said. “They were standing on a street corner in Shanksville talking. Their car was nearby, so they were the first here—and the fire department came. Everyone was puzzled, because the call had been that a plane had crashed. But there was no plane.” “They had been sent here because of a crash, but there was no plane?” the reporter asked. “No. Nothing. Only this hole.”

was actually followed by this:

"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."

Two, completely contradictory statements. You can't have both.

According to the WDR copy, the portion of the film script quoted above is followed by this statement made by Stull on the original tape:

Can anyone provide this copy, so we can see with our own eyes?

And to top it all off, the mayor is talking about an airplane in the crater. Sheesh, watch your own videos Point Of No Return

Yes, this is what he said:

"That is it, what they saw. - "I always thought that was the crash site" - "It is, but nothing is to be seen there, the plane divided itself totally. Poof, it cracked on the soil and dissolved, completely"

He is talking about the lack of airplane in the crater, obviously. Sheesh. I think you should pay more attention to the video.

Again, this is completely contradictory to the statement that was supposedly left out.

So that's 2 statements claiming that there was no evidence of a plane at all.

The statement that was supposedly left out, doesn't even fit in the context, it's contradictory to the context.

He ain't getting it in, no matter how many ways you try to explain it. It just doesn't compute that the mayor was talking long before the this particular video segment begins. It's obvious when the audio starts in this clip because his first sentence starts with "Well, yeah..."(0:16) meaning he was already in the middle of reciting his story.

The statement that was supposedly left out was said to follow that part, so I don't see what this has to do with anything.

It's pretty bad when even "Der Spiegel" is calling you out on questionable journalism.

Why didn't they show the original tape, if they claim that it shows the complete conversation. Why don't you show it?

Questionable journalism indeed.

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."

Just to add, this completely destroys the theory that the plane and it's passengers were blasted to confetti, like some claim in this thread.







[edit on 1-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by 767doctor

There was no airplane,' says Ernie Stull, speaking partly to us and partly as if he were listening to his own voice, checking to see if he had heard himself correctly. One and half years after the catastrophe, he still shakes his head, completely at a loss, and helplessly extends his arms: 'No airplane'."

Again, why would he react like this(he clearly did in the vid)? He obviously knew how wrong the situation was.

reply to post by GenRadek

No its an opinion based on denial of the actual evidence.

No, its not an opinion, the evidences supports it. Only gullible people who are in denial of seeing proven evidence, because they can't accept their government could do a false flag operation, and murdering over 3000 Americans in cold blood to justify attacking an innocent foreign country, just to make money for the oil companies and seize control of the worlds largest opium fields.

Everyone knows, our governments (CIA) are the biggest drug dealers in the world, only people who are ignorant to these facts, or just in denial don’t want to see the facts.

The real fact is that Flight 93 DID crash at Shanksville.

The real fact is this is your opinion, and you do not have any evidences to support your claim.

Just because you ignore every shred of evidence that supports it does not make YOUR opinion true. Just shows paranoid delusions based on ignorance.

People looking for the truth cannot and will [color=gold]not ignore. It is people who cannot, or will not accept the truth and don’t want to know the truth that show to be paranoid delusions based on ignorance, not the other way round.

Deny ignorance, do not embrace it.

It really amazes me the very people who deny proven scientific evidence, proven the government are lairs, like to grab the above quote and spin it as if they are right and people that are looking for the truth are ignorant. This game is getting a little old don’t you think.





[edit on 1-6-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by Doc Velocity

Except that, if you actually reviewed the transcripts of eyewitnesses in Shanksville, you know that several witnesses SAW the airliner coming in at between 350 and 500 mph at low altitude, saw it losing pieces from the extreme acceleration and maneuvers, and SAW it belly-roll into a vertical dive just before impact.

Except they were probably paid to tell that story, don’t yeah think. Its very odd that there were professionals like police officers, that saw a plane coming in a different direction from what they government says. Oops, I forgot the government does not tell lies, do they. But your eyewitness and our are only giving their statements but who telling the truth?

You want to believe the witness that support the governments fairytales because believing in the any other witness that does not support the OS, might guide one to believe 911 was an inside job.

Are you suggesting that these eyewitnesses have been compromised and have refuted their testimony? Because, to my knowledge, none of them have retracted their stories. They saw Flight 93 go down, saw the fireball rising into the sky, and felt the concussion of its impact, which broke windows up to half a mile away.

Neither have eyewitness who saw something different and their statement have not changed either and do not support the OS fairytales

reply to post by Doc Velocity

As for the debris field at the point of impact, it has been repeatedly explained by the FAA that the majority of the aircraft (about 65%) was recovered, buried up to 30 feet below the surface in the loose soil.

It’s all a proven lie, why don’t you stop repeating the OS over and over and over. You have no evidences that can prove any of this nonsense, except the governments WORD. I can be a parrot to.