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.
Ohh and half the 9/11 commissioners say the report was hampered by the WH..
Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by backinblack
Ohh and half the 9/11 commissioners say the report was hampered by the WH..
How is that relevant to the topic of this discussion ? That's known as deflection , and contributes absolutely nothing towards the discussion of airplane crashes .
For starters , please show where "the official story of 9/11 has been proven false" . What part of the "OS" has been proven false , and how was this proven ?
I can safely say that every gram of the wings struck the ground...
No, I was replying to your post with this and more..
For starters , please show where "the official story of 9/11 has been proven false" . What part of the "OS" has been proven false , and how was this proven ?
I was just responding to YOUR deflection
As one structure? Sufficient in structural cohesion so as to provide a distinct "wing" like imprint visible from a substantial distance? That's the question and the argument.
Barry Hoover, 34, stands at a locked gate in the driveway of his home; the flight crashed about 100 yards from his house. The house is now considered structurally unsound, and debris went flying on the property and through the roof and windows blew out. He wasn't home at the time of the crash.
"My home life is not my home life," he says. "I had a routine, like everybody else, and now I don?t. I haven't been able to take anything out, not even a CD."
usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/12/21/shanksville.htm
Those wings are not quite as flimsy as you make out..
Yes the skin is thin but there is structure beneath the skin..
At the very least I'd expect to see CLEAR impact damage from the wings and the 44' tail...
Again, why? You assume, again, that these structure made it, intact, all the way to the ground.
By the way, the tail is not 44' tall. The top of the tail is 44' above the ground when the plane is on the ground on wheels. The tail itself is not 44' in dimension.
This next image shows you what was created or said to have been crated on September 11th 2001 by alleged Flight 93. The crater has been said to be 10-15 feet deep and only 25-35 feet wide.
Wow, so the tail is around 40' tall.
But I never said those 124' 10" wide wings were fully intact though they may have been..
I just said they would still leave a mark..
You are just twisting and going round in circles..
Your normal play and quite boring..
IMO the marks on the ground do now conform with a crash by a 757..
There's no evidence you have added to alter that opinion..
Sure I did. But what you fail to recognize is that you don't have an "opinion". What you are holding onto is more of belief. And if you ever discussed religion with someone who is a firm adherent to one belief system or another you probably realize that rational examination is never going to dissuade belief.
Wasn't the crater there before the crash of fl.93?I believe someone posted a survey photo of this exact spot of this crater,I believe from the 1990's.I will try to find it and post it.
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The crater is too small to have been cause by a high velocity Boeing 767 coming in at less than 49% angle but thats not the obvious. The scars that extend out of the crater are not caused by wings and no one has ever said they were caused by wings as you can see there is dry unbroken grass and the impression are obviously weathered let alone any of a tail fin. REMEMBER the plane came in inverted (upside down)
Therefore the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 767 or anything remotely the size.
edit on 23-1-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)
Walley Miller - "The hole was 10-15 feet deep"
Of course the crater is not going to be as deep as the entire wreckage of the plane , common sense tells you this would not be the case , so where is there a valid argument in this line of reasoning