Challenge: produce two photos from Shanksville scene showing plane wires

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Maybe my eyes are malfunctioning (I did just remove my contact lenses), but the area where the plane hit looks really charred and there is no grass there. Why are you even arguing that the grass isn't burnt?

reply to post by hooper


yeah so the plane hits the ground at high speed , explodes , a handf full of wires are found with a few little peices of this and that lying around , and miraculously , the fuel has jumped away from the impact zone and launched into the trees behind it , not as much as a splash went on the grass ?
So tell me , if that "crater" is where the plane hit ..... and the trees are the only thing burnt .... was this some kind of secret op 757 with ejectable fuel tanks, and a tendancy to completely dissapear ? Oo ? oO ? why cant you beleive that we cant beleive, that you cant beleive that we cant beleive a plane hit that exact spot ? ever seen a plane crash into the ground ? wanna see one just for lolz ?

www.youtube.com...


That grass was burnt

reply to post by ReptileRipper

That grass was burnt

Well, I guess that proves that then. Because as we all know, whatever happens at one plane crash must happen the exact same way in all plane crashes because all planes are the same size, they all travel at the same speed, they always hit the ground at the same exact angle and attitude and the ground is always exactly the same. With that undeniable knowledge we must therefore conclude and can ONLY conclude that the impact of Flight 93 was faked.

Here's a link to the NYT:

www.nytimes.com...

Or email:

[email protected]


I would suggest you contact them immeadiately so they can get right on this breaking story.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ReptileRipper

 

How about over 11,000 US gallons of kerosene , and not as much as a black spot on the grass.

Please prove that the impact area was completely grass covered and therefore should have been burnt.

There is a small crater about 30 feet across and 10 feet deep no grass burned beyond that. Considering the amount of fuel on board that field should of been burnt. But I am sure you will tap dance around that too. Silly logic really.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ReptileRipper

 

That grass was burnt

Well, I guess that proves that then. Because as we all know, whatever happens at one plane crash must happen the exact same way in all plane crashes because all planes are the same size, they all travel at the same speed, they always hit the ground at the same exact angle and attitude and the ground is always exactly the same. With that undeniable knowledge we must therefore conclude and can ONLY conclude that the impact of Flight 93 was faked.

Here's a link to the NYT:

www.nytimes.com...

Or email:

[email protected]


I would suggest you contact them immeadiately so they can get right on this breaking story.

www.youtube.com...

A 757 did NOT crash in that spot , were talking over 11,000 gallons of kerosene here , it would look similar to the B52 crash you just saw in that video ...... seriously , what fcuking planet are you people on ?

When the planes hit the towers ... that big old ball of flames ..... yeah .... wheres the evidence of that at shanksville ? no scorch marks = no flames = no fire = no crash ............ if a plane hit that spot it was a small one , a very small one.

DEbunking 101. Play stupid, hit and run, avoid evidence, ask stupid questions.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Just a thought, but perhaps this is the wrong side of the crater to look at? The wind appears to be blowing in the direction of the forest, where the trees were burnt. Wouldn't it be logical to say that the grass on the side that the wind isn't blowing toward would have less damage?

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think you're being obtuse right now.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Um...



Seriously, is the burnt stuff invisible to you, or... what is going on here?

reply to post by ReptileRipper

A 757 did NOT crash in that spot , were talking over 11,000 gallons of kerosene here , it would look similar to the B52 crash you just saw in that video ...... seriously , what fcuking planet are you people on ?

When the planes hit the towers ... that big old ball of flames ..... yeah .... wheres the evidence of that at shanksville ? no scorch marks = no flames = no fire = no crash ............ if a plane hit that spot it was a small one , a very small one.

So how do you explain the big scorch marks???? Seriously, not all events happen the same way. Pick up a deck of cards, hold it out at arms length and drop them. Note the number and type of cards that land face up. Repeat. Compare notes. In your world it should be exactly the same, so why isn't it? Inside job? Did someone move the cards around when you weren't looking?

And really, comparing the impact into a tower and into the ground? You're really sounding silly now.

reply to post by ReptileRipper
The problem is, they are on this planet. Although it's become obvious to the most casual observer, that this group of 'debunkers' is not real, we are forced by the rules of the game to treat them as though they are. I'm learning to be a bit more reserved in my retorts, and the 'mods' have been more than fair to me, so I've resigned myself to the fact that we have to, for now, co-exist. They know they're losing here, and that's enough for me today. Just try to keep the steam up, never give in until this issue is re-opened.

This next image shows you what was created on 911. 30 feet wide 10 feet deep. I highlighted the grass green. As you can see, no fire, no burnt grass just a small crater too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.

This next image give you an idea how tall and dry the grass was.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by ReptileRipper

 

The problem is, they are on this planet. Although it's become obvious to the most casual observer, that this group of 'debunkers' is not real, we are forced by the rules of the game to treat them as though they are. I'm learning to be a bit more reserved in my retorts, and the 'mods' have been more than fair to me, so I've resigned myself to the fact that we have to, for now, co-exist. They know they're losing here, and that's enough for me today. Just try to keep the steam up, never give in until this issue is re-opened.

Bang on, we all agree with you. Sad state tho. Makes people want to go elsewhere to discuss this.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


The original image without the highlighting would be nice. Right now, you're altering the image to fit your personal perception.

This is dishonest at best. The trees were burnt, the grass was burnt, and there's a crater. What am I missing, truly?

reply to post by Varemia


Veracity?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

The original image without the highlighting would be nice. Right now, you're altering the image to fit your personal perception.

This is dishonest at best. The trees were burnt, the grass was burnt, and there's a crater. What am I missing, truly?

Your missing the fact that we are not stupid. This is not jref and most of us are educated beyond your understanding.

No fire, no burnt grass. This crash site was not caused by a intact boeing 757.

You should just agree to disagree and go post on some other thread. Start your own, explain your whacky science as why you think the small crater could have been caused by a boeing 757.

What a real plane crash looks like. This plane was similar to the size of flight 93

reply to post by Shadow Herder


I don't see the grass at all. How were you able to discern it?

This is not scientific or clear in any way, shape or form. Hell, it feels like you are intentionally trying to mess with people so that they look at non-issues rather than the real conspiracy.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Different angle and different speed, I'm guessing? Possibly different fuel amounts?

Kay, just checking.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Your missing the fact that we are not stupid.

Yeah, and how. Missed that fact by a mile.

This is not jref and most of us are educated beyond your understanding.

You're right, I can't understand how you were educated.

No fire, no burnt grass.

No grass, no burnt grass either.

This crash site was not caused by a intact boeing 757.

Well, now that you put it that way - you're still wrong.

You should just agree to disagree and go post on some other thread.

What, and just ignore you? You know you don't want that - this is really the only attention you get.

Start your own, explain your whacky science as why you think the small crater could have been caused by a boeing 757.

Well, now that you put it so scientifically, "small crater", there's hardly a point in arguing about it. But I'll give it a go, why don't you show, scientifically, what size the crater should be.

www.1001crash.com...

*cough* *cough*