Challenge: produce two photos from Shanksville scene showing plane wires

[

As you can see there are many 'trenches' that can easily be found around the Shanksville crash site. Why is this one "burnt" or "black" too?

reply to post by Shadow Herder


But why was it burnt? You can clearly see the charred earth of the scar. It wouldn't be burnt if it was just a trench.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

But why was it burnt? You can clearly see the charred earth of the scar. It wouldn't be burnt if it was just a trench.

Gasoline burns grass fairly well or jet fuel

depending on which ever stance you wish to take

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Quite an amazing stance to stick to:

Something did crash there it just wasnt a Boeing 757.

And repeating a poorly formed opinion based on flawed interpretations of all the data won't turn it suddenly into a fact.

When someone alleges it "wasn't a Boeing 757" and ignores the actual, irrefutable facts of:

Flight Data Recorder (FDR) from United 93

Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) from United 93

Airplane debris

Jet fuel in the area

Human remains

Personal effects of the passengers and crew

Eyewitness testimony to the above from first responders on scene, and on-site cleanup workers

Forensics and DNA work to match the Human remains, that attest to the facts above

Air Traffic Control radar tapes tracking United 93's primary skin return, when the transponder was off, all the way to impact

A Private Pilot, and his passenger, airborne in a Piper Arrow single-engine witnessed United 93 before crash

Seat-back 'AirFone' calls made from United 93

Cell phone calls made from United 93 (after it descended to low altitude)

And, just prior to impact, United 93's transponder was briefly turned back on...the same four-digit code originally assigned. It produced a data block on ATC screens with the proper ID, and squawked Mode C (altitude) information too.

Furthermore, the size of the impact site is commensurate with the majority of the airplane, when measuring on a radius from the centerline of the fuselage out board, to where the engines were mounted.

Four to a half-dozen other high velocity, very steep angle impacts can be referenced for comparisons.

~~~~~~~~
On the other, a handful of ATS members clinging doggedly to a *theory* that is weak, circumstantial at best, and relies heavily on instances of poorly researched [in the past] assertions written on countless "conspiracy" websites that, due to the nature of the Internet, still linger out there in cyber-space....even though long ago dis-proven.

A *theory* that includes easily mis-interpreted photo "evidence", and one or two "eyewitnesses" whose stories are flimsy, at best, due to their not being qualified as experienced in aviation, aeronautics, and airplane identification abilities.

Conclusion?

/end thread.

Nope, the evidence suggests that something caused the crater but it wasn't a Boeing 757. One of the last eye witnesses that saw a craft seconds before crashing claims it was no bigger than a van, was real smooth, no windows.

It was proven that the wing scars were not wing scars. It was proven that an inverted plane hitting the ground would leave a crater larger than 30 feet wide and 10 feet deep considering the Boeing 757 is over 155 feet long and has a wingspan of over 124 and was travelling at more than 500 mph. It came in at an inverted 45 degree angle.

Wishful thinking about ending the thread. Ive pinned you to the wall and had your evidence ridiculed here by most users and you want this thread closed?

Typical..... Go to the UFO forum. Its right up your alley PROUDBIRD.

Here is another image of the natural 'wing scars' .


Mere yards away from the crash site.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Nope, the evidence suggests that something caused the crater but it wasn't a Boeing 757. One of the last eye witnesses that saw a craft seconds before crashing claims it was no bigger than a van, was real smooth, no windows.

Really, her story does not match all the other witnesses....nor does it match the FDR.

Bob Blair was completing a routine drive to Shade Creek just after 10 a.m. Tuesday, when he saw a huge silver plane fly past him just above the treetops and crash into the woods along Lambertsville Road.

Blair, of Stoystown, a driver with Jim Barron Trucking of Somerset, was traveling in a coal truck along with Doug Miller of Somerset, when they saw the plane spiraling to the ground and then explode on the outskirts of Lambertsville.

“I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene,” said Blair.

It was proven that the wing scars were not wing scars. It was proven that an inverted plane hitting the ground would leave a crater larger than 30 feet wide and 10 feet deep considering the Boeing 757 is over 155 feet long and has a wingspan of over 124 and was traveling at more than 500 mph. It came in at an inverted 45 degree angle.

"It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets. You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud."

Rob Kimmel, several miles from the crash site: He sees it fly overhead, banking hard to the right. It is 200 feet or less off the ground as it crests a hill to the southeast. "I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom."

[Among the Heroes, by Jere Longman, p. 210-211]

Tom Fritz, about a quarter-mile from the crash site: He hears a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looks up in the sky. "It dropped all of a sudden, like a stone," going "so fast that you couldn't even make out what color it was."

[St. Petersburg Times, 9/12/01]

Terry Butler "It dropped out of the clouds." The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down."

[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/12/01]

Terry Butler: He sees the plane come out of the clouds, low to the ground. "It was moving like you wouldn't believe. Next thing I knew it makes a heck of a sharp, right-hand turn." It banks to the right and appears to be trying to climb to clear one of the ridges, but it continues to turn to the right and then veers behind a ridge. About a second later it crashes.

[St. Petersburg Times, 9/12/01]

Lee Purbaugh, 300 yards away: "There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there, right above my head – maybe 50 feet up.... I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly have survived."

[Independent, 8/13/02]

Tim Thornsberg, working in a nearby strip mine: "It came in low over the trees and started wobbling. Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees."

[WPIX Channel 11, 9/13/01]

Now read this:

NTSB Flight 93 Flight Path Study Excerpt:

"From 10:00 to 10:02 there were four distinct control column inputs that caused the airplane to pitch nose-up (climb) and nose-down (dive) aggressively. During this time the airplane climbed to about 10,000 feet while turning to the right. The airplane then pitched nose-down and rolled to the right in response to flight control inputs, and impacted the ground at about 490 knots (563 mph) [FDR says 500 kts] in a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude. The time of impact was 10:03:11."

Wishful thinking about ending the thread. Ive pinned you to the wall and had your evidence ridiculed here by most users and you want this thread closed?

Typical..... Go to the UFO forum. Its right up your alley PROUDBIRD.

You have done no such thing but painted yourself in a corner and are unable to get out. When will you address the phone calls? When will you address flight 1771 that you have been asked about 5 times now?

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

This plane crashed in terrain similar to Shanksville....

No, it was not "similar"

.... and the plane was about the same size as alleged flight 93.

The Tu-154 Dimensions and specifications is roughly the same size as a Boeing 757-200, correct. That is where any "similarities" end.

But, the major thing to note is huge difference in the manner of impact.


The Caspian Airlines Tu-154 crash:

Accident

The aircraft crashed at 11:33 Iran Daylight Time (07:03 UTC), 16 minutes after take-off from Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport. According to authorities, the aircraft's tail suddenly caught on fire. The pilot circled, trying to find a safe spot to land, but without success. The aircraft was completely destroyed after it crashed into an agricultural field, carving a crater up to 10 metres (33 ft) deep. An eye witness who claims to have been within 300 metres (330 yd) of the crash-site described the event as if "the plane just fell out of the sky". .

Source

It is important in these discussion to assure that all facts are true and correct, and that assertions made are not from supposition and prior misinformation.


From the description above it is clear that the final uncontrolled dive to impact was nothing at all similar to UAL 93, which was an intention act, intended to hit the ground at maximum velocity. The crew of the Tu-154 did NOT have a death wish, but were unfortunate victims of the fire that could not be contained, and ultimately destroyed enough of the airframe in the tail section to cause them to lose control, and plunge to impact.

The terrain was not a former strip mine, as is the case in Shanksville, PA. The Tu-154 was not dove into the ground with intent.

Major differences....

And the plane at Shanksville, according to the OS, was not DELIBERATELY drove into the ground with INTENT...it was intended, according to the OS, to achieve another high profile target...

reply to post by jeichelberg


I think the idea is that the passengers were trying to get control of the airplane, so the hijackers thrust it into the ground. That's a fairly good intent.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Here is another image of the natural 'wing scars' .

Mere yards away from the crash site.

No comment on this?

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Your photo is pathetic, and is no where near the actual impact:

To repeat:


Quite an amazing stance to stick to:

Something did crash there it just wasnt a Boeing 757.

And repeating a poorly formed opinion based on flawed interpretations of all the data won't turn it suddenly into a fact.

When someone alleges it "wasn't a Boeing 757" and ignores the actual, irrefutable facts of:

Flight Data Recorder (FDR) from United 93

Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) from United 93

Airplane debris

Jet fuel in the area

Human remains

Personal effects of the passengers and crew

Eyewitness testimony to the above from first responders on scene, and on-site cleanup workers

Forensics and DNA work to match the Human remains, that attest to the facts above

Air Traffic Control radar tapes tracking United 93's primary skin return, when the transponder was off, all the way to impact

A Private Pilot, and his passenger, airborne in a Piper Arrow single-engine witnessed United 93 before crash

Seat-back 'AirFone' calls made from United 93

Cell phone calls made from United 93 (after it descended to low altitude)

And, just prior to impact, United 93's transponder was briefly turned back on...the same four-digit code originally assigned. It produced a data block on ATC screens with the proper ID, and squawked Mode C (altitude) information too.

Furthermore, the size of the impact site is commensurate with the majority of the airplane, when measuring on a radius from the centerline of the fuselage out board, to where the engines were mounted.

Four to a half-dozen other high velocity, very steep angle impacts can be referenced for comparisons.

~~~~~~~~
On the other, a handful of ATS members clinging doggedly to a *theory* that is weak, circumstantial at best, and relies heavily on instances of poorly researched [in the past] assertions written on countless "conspiracy" websites that, due to the nature of the Internet, still linger out there in cyber-space....even though long ago dis-proven.

A *theory* that includes easily mis-interpreted photo "evidence", and one or two "eyewitnesses" whose stories are flimsy, at best, due to their not being qualified as experienced in aviation, aeronautics, and airplane identification abilities.

Conclusion?

/end thread.

reply to post by ProudBird


pics or it didnt happen ................ ive seen no 757 debri .....
and if you dudes know so much about planes , why cant you see thats not a 757 crash site ?
please point out to me the key parts of the visual evidence ....... i cant see anthying solid.

reply to post by ReptileRipper


911research.wtc7.net...





This youtube video details how situations similar to the crash have happened before:



There are your pics. Now will you scream "fake!" like all truth deniers do, or will you finally concede that there was a plane there, man?

reply to post by Varemia


Thats not debri , its pure fakery

and .....

The first clip in the video - the crash in Iran ..... it says small crator , anyway it was a Tupolev Tu-154 ....... pretty similar to a 757 when it comes to specs, and thats a big crator.
But the second clip in the video - flight 1771 was a BAe 146 --- completley different class of plane. and the crator was small

gonna get banned again now toodles

Originally posted by SillyTruther
reply to post by Varemia

 

Thats not debri , its pure fakery

and .....

The first clip in the video - the crash in Iran ..... it says small crator

, anyway it was a Tupolev Tu-154 ....... pretty similar to a 757 when it comes to specs, and thats a big crator.
But the second clip in the video - flight 1771 was a BAe 146 --- completley different class of plane. and the crator was small

gonna get banned again now

toodles

Funny, this guy is a debunker posing as a truther. Unreal. The kid even had the gull to misspell easy words.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Here is another image of the natural 'wing scars' .

Mere yards away from the crash site.

No comment on this?

YEs in my image you can see the 'wing scars' but as you can tell they are caused by drainage and part of the earth works in the area I can give another 15 examples of 124.10 foot charrred wingscars in the area.

The 30 foot wide 10 foot deep crater on 911 was created upon a drainage scar like the one shown in the example above which is just feet away from the flight 93 crash site.

Nah its me , got banned for telling the truth
check it out shadow ..... look at the vid that was put up by -V- i dont know how he thinks thats evidence of anything , the first crater is huge , and is from a Tupolev Tu-154 ... the specs are close to a 757 so thats the type of crater were looking for ............. the second crater is tiny , like the flight 93 crater , but its from a BAe 146 .. much smaller than a 757 ....... check the specs on wiki.

probably banned again when -dont-tread-on-me- spots me .... (and treads on me )

reply to post by SillyTruther


Ever considered that Flight 93 hit at more of an angle? That's the logical answer, but you don't follow logic, so why do I bother?

How is the debris fake, might I ask? Did you have any logical or reasonable reason for believing this, or is it just your misguided opinion? Who are you to judge what evidence is real or fake? Is it simply because you are "in the know?" Do you have some greater knowledge that lets you determine fake or real based on whether it agrees with your preconceived notions?

Somehow, I just knew you would declare it fake. I provided a source and everything. Honestly, I'm beginning to think you can't even consider another possibility than what you already believe. This is your religion, is it not?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper

 

911research.wtc7.net...

When were those images released? When were they taken? Where were they taken?

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Did you look at the link? They were used in the Moussaoui trial in 2006. Those were the largest pieces of aircraft from Shanksville. It seems that the large bits pummeled toward the forest, which got burned by some of the flaming debris. This is why I say it is logical to assume the plane hit at an angle, and that's probably why the crater isn't as deep as it could have been.

I realize that the site I'm linking is a conspiracy site, but the pictures do not lie.