How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

Status
Not open for further replies.
yankee451 said:
Almost every one of you have resorted to ridicule rather than rational argument; demanding the mathematical calculations to prove my claims, well I'm working on it, you can take that to the bank.
Click to expand...


You have yet to provide a rational argument. Ridicule is an appropriate response to a no-planer.

yankee451 said:
If any of you jokers could walk your talk you would have no problem proving the trajectories and ejecta created by two 900 lb projectiles measuring 12x60 inches either can or cannot account for the gash, and do you know why I think you don't try? Because I think you know the answer.
Click to expand...


Yes.

It was planes, not missiles.
 
yankee451 said:
...
I have a couple documents which predict the missile impact craters but I don't have the math chops to crunch the numbers. The engineers should be able to use the existing data about how craters are made, down to trajectory of the ejecta, and prove once and for all whether a missile warhead weighing 900 lbs and measuring 12x60 inches could do it. If not, then what could? If it's a jet then I'm wrong and can go back to having a life.
...
Click to expand...

Those craters in the experiment were created at projectile speeds of 1,700 m/s.
A cruise missile travels sub-sonic, no more than 250 m/s.

Kinetic energy increases with velocity squared.
1,7002 = 2,890,000
2502 = 62,500
Factor between the two: ca. 46x.
So your 900 lbs warhead at 250 m/s would bring the same energy as a 19.5 lbs projectile at 1,700 m/s.

BUT a lot more impulse: 225,000 lbs*m/s vs. 33,000 lbs*m/s - a factor of almost 7.

Impulse and energy are conserved in the impact.
I am not quite sure about modelling this, but the difference of speeds, which is the same as the difference of impulses, would certainly express itself in the amount of deformation (effect of inelastic collision) vs. mass ejection (elastic collsion).

In other words, it is doubtfull that you could even compare the two!

Next up, you ignore the vast differences in soil properties - one beeing perfectly dry and loose, one being wet and sticky.


Bottom line: You just imagine things might look the same, and it's your fantasy that this constitutes evidence.
It doesn't.


However, as you make a claim, the burden of evidence is on you.


Meanwhile, you ignore or handwave 100% of the actual evidence.
 
yankee451 said:
you believe yours because you saw it on the TeeVee.
Click to expand...

Can you substantiate your claim?
Can you document that any of Kid Eager's arguments rests on anything he merely saw on "TeeVee"?

(Why the silly, childish spelling "TeeVee"? Did you learn that from fellow no-planer Jerry Leaphart?)
 
beachnut said:
I graduated a long time ago.

AircraftCourseOrg680.jpg
Click to expand...

Jealous. Wish my air crash course gave me a certificate :( all I got was level 100, 200 and 300 credits towards my degree.
 
yankee451 said:
Because Americans are brainwasned and will believe authority by virtue of their authority. And nothing else.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that's a very unconvincing reason to accept your preposterously complex version of events.

Firstly you haven't made any case for America being brainwashed to blindly accept authority. The ultimate authority on 9/11 was G.W.Bush. Are you saying Americans believed everything he said? You don't recall there being swathes of Americans of other political leaning who thought he was an idiot? Yet you claim America was brainwashed to accept authority blindly.

But I can hear the paranoid calling out "No, of course GWB was not the real authority. He was just a puppet. 'They' were really in charge."

Sadly that doesn't help your claim. You can't say Americans were brainwashed to accept the authority of some nebulous group which nobody knew existed never mind believed to be in authority.


Anyway, none of this explains why 'they' had to go to the absurdly complicated lengths you describe to manufacture a fake 757 crash site.


Scenario a): 'They' had brainwashed America to believe them.

In this Orwellian scenario, why fake the crash site at all? Just announce that the crash had happened. Say it crashed in a lake. Or in the ocean. Everyone will simply believe you, right?

So in this case, there is no need to fire off a batch of not-yet-in-service missiles, with only a modest chance of making the correct impact scars, then seeding the impact point with debris from a real 757 crash (oh, yeah, about that - obviously you still need to stage a real 757 crash to generate accurate-looking 757 debris). Nor do you need to suppress the real radar, eyewitnesses, cellphone traffic, flight data etc.

You've created a virtually impossible job for your army of henchmen to contain the situation, and all quite needlessly. If you proposed this at NWO headquarters, you'd quite rightly be fired. Your seat at the big table would suddenly drop into the floor...

Scenario b): No, actually they hadn't brainwashed everyone.

Same deal, except you have to make every detail consistent for the legions of un-brainwashed folk who will encounter parts of the evidence and spot anomalies. In this scenario, your plan makes even less sense. You need a completely plausible crash site, and it has to tie up with radar, radio traffic, eyewitnesses etc.

At NWO HQ you propose your cross-fired missiles and convoluted plan to suppress the real trail of evidence and dress up the site with debris from a real 757 crash. After an awkward silence, someone says "So we still have to crash a 757 anyway?"
"Yes, plainly we have to have credible debris."
"Ah. Only, why is it better to transport all this debris to Shanksville and then bury most of it (which will really mess up the nice crater our missiles made, by the way) instead of just, you know, crashing it at Shanksville?"

Number One will stroke his cat and his finger will hover over the button for your chair.
 
Last edited:
What happened to the passengers and crew?
Where are they now if the weren't killed in the crash?
Were they killed elsewhere and their remains brought to the site?
Where did the aircraft go after it took off if it didn't crash?
Where is it now?
Was it broken up elsewhere and its parts brought to the site?
 
the answer is you are a liar. a self absorbed liar. dancing on the graves of real people.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
Ta da! There is life out there after all. So someone screwed up didn't they? Maybe they subconsiously sabotaged it by placing the "crash site" too close to the woods, who knows, but it was so difficult it appears one missile hit a tree and set fire to the woods.



Oh. I spoke too soon.

Why is the radar evidence reliable? If they are to fool pilots and other very smart people into believing planes did the impossible, don't you think radar records would be a prerequesite, or do you think every pilot, reporter, engineer, etc are involved?



They were in production, and being new and previously unseen by civilians or most military folk, and as you say not in service yet they were more likely to be mistaken as a small white plane than a missile, eh? Plausible deniability - perfect for a covert mission such as this.
Click to expand...

Why are you even here for this short amount of time?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What happened to the passengers and crew?
Where are they now if the weren't killed in the crash?
Were they killed elsewhere and their remains brought to the site?
Where did the aircraft go after it took off if it didn't crash?
Where is it now?
Was it broken up elsewhere and its parts brought to the site?
Click to expand...

So despite there being no evidence of a plane, becuase you were told about a plane, you believe there must be a plane.

Circular logic at its best.
 
Oystein said:
Can you substantiate your claim?
Can you document that any of Kid Eager's arguments rests on anything he merely saw on "TeeVee"?

(Why the silly, childish spelling "TeeVee"? Did you learn that from fellow no-planer Jerry Leaphart?)
Click to expand...

Sure - physics proves a jet couoldn't do it.

TeeVee is insulting to one's intelligence. So I mock it.
 
plenty evidence of a plane, plane parts, plane engine buried in the ground, black box found

identifying numbers from the proper plane that matches the flight number found on the parts. DNA from the passengers found on the remains.....

tons of evidence, literally TONS of evidence recovered at the scene.

you have nothing but retarded speculation. no evidence.


anyone who thinks there were no planes involved is a crazy person. it's that simple
 
yankee451 said:
Because missile craters are almost impossible to find, the closest thing I can find for a real world example are NASA's photographs of oblique meteorites:

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/oblique.jpg[/qimg]

Mirrored to show what a crater might look like if two meteorites had struck at ten degree trajectories from opposite directions.

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/mirrored-oblique.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Oblique-2.jpg[/qimg]

Compare to Shanksville:

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Flight_93_aerial_msnbc.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Missiles and meteors don't make the same kind of craters.

For two missiles to make the crater seen in Shanksville, they would have to come in at an extremely shallow angle and plow through 100 feet of rocky soil before exploding. Missiles don't do that.
 
yankee451 said:
...despite there being no evidence of a plane...
Click to expand...

What did all those passengers do, when they turned up with their tickets and there was no plane?

What did the airport do, when told one of their scheduled departures had crashed, but they had no record of it?

What did the airline do when told one of their planes had crashed but they counted them (twice, I expect) and none were unaccounted for?

What did the responders do when instead of finding a hundred tons of aircraft bits they found some missile parts and mud?

What did air traffic control do when told they'd tracked the flight all the way and had no record of doing so?

What did the relatives do when told their loved ones had been murdered and they couldn't remember having any such relatives?
 
yankee451 said:
So despite there being no evidence of a plane, becuase you were told about a plane, you believe there must be a plane.

Circular logic at its best.
Click to expand...

But YOU posted a picture of plane debris. Remember when you said it disappeared, and then proved it "disappeared" by posting a picture of the debris? That was classic.

I can't remember if it was before or after you posted a picture from a movie as "evidence."

Say, you don't like "TeeVee" but you do like "movies." What if I watch a movie on the TeeVee? Is that like dividing by zero?
 
yankee451 said:
So despite there being no evidence of a plane, because you were told about a plane, you believe there must be a plane.

Circular logic at its best.
Click to expand...

But we know there was a plane. People saw it take off from the airport. People loaded it with fuel, emptied it's toilets, loaded the baggage and cleaned the interior.
Engineers serviced it.
Passengers were seen to board it, some of them ware seen by their family members and work colleagues and friends to get aboard it.
It took off from the airport and was tacked on Radar up until the moment it crashed.

Where is it now if it didn't crash?
Where are all the passengers and crew?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom