How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[Mudcat]

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?

Only twice? Probably more than four times, as likely as not.

 

[Oystein]

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.

No evidence, except for ALL the evidence.

Remember ALL the evidence? That you ignore?


In this subforum, we have gone over the radar evidence. That wasn't from TV. Forum members have decoded the actual radar raw data.
In this subforum, we have gone over the FDR evidence. That wasn't from TV. Forum members have decoded the actual FDR data.
In this subforum, we have gone over the Air Traffic Control evidence. That wasn't from TV. Forum members have talked to the actual air traffic controllers of 9/11. One forum member IS an actual air traffic controllers of 9/11.
In this subforum, we have gone over the photo and video evidence. Some of that was from TV, sure, much wasn't. By the way, how do you know what the crater looked like, if not from TV.
In this subforum, we have researched the evidence that was introduced at the Moussaui criminal trial. It includes evidence about the passengers, the planes. We didn't get that from TV. We went to the pertinent web pages of the court.



So please stop telling the big bold fat ugly lie that we were merely told about a plane. Just stop the lies.

 

[Oystein]

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?)

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

TeeVee is insulting to one's intelligence. So I mock it.

That wasn't the question I asked.

I asked:

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

and I quoted the claim I wanted you to substantiate:

Unlike you, I am doing something to prove my claims - you believe yours because you saw it on the TeeVee.

So:

Can you substantiate your claim that Kid Eager believes his claims because he saw it on the TeeVee?
Can you document that any of Kid Eager's arguments rests on anything he merely saw on "TeeVee"?

 

[fess]

Originally Posted by fess
As I stated before, the terrain around the Shanksville crash site would have made a 10 degree trajectory an extremely difficult shot.

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.

I made the above comment, and this was your answer? Would you mind telling me who “They” are?
Do you think that this arrant missile would have only set fire to the tree instead of blowing it down?
Have you ever seen a missile strike?

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?

Why is radar reliable? Well, I use radar every time I fly and it hasn’t let me down yet. I have never had a controller (military or civil) try to fool me with radar.
What makes you think this aircraft did the impossible?
You do realize that radar tracked Flt 93 through every phase of its flight from point A to B… don’t you?
Why didn' anyone see or hear these aircraft that fired the missile?

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.

Being in production and being in service are quite different. What would make you think that these missiles were unseen by civilians or military “folk”? Who built the missile, monkeys? Who tested the missile?

ETA: Thanks for finally answering one of my posts.

 

[fess]

The original claim is that a jet caused the damage and this has not yet been established, so get over yourself.

Then maybe you could explain why both engines were found at the crash site.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Do you think that this arrant missile would have only set fire to the tree instead of blowing it down?

<nitpick> I think you mean 'errant'. It's the truther nonsense that's arrant. </nitpick>

I imagined the stray missile stuck in the split tree like an arrow in a cartoon cowboy's hat, before the Men in Black arrived to cart it away.

That's how it was, right yankee451?

 

[Sunstealer]

Is he trying to say that this aircraft

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=591UA

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N591UA&distinct_entry=true

never existed?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

No evidence, except for ALL the evidence.

Remember ALL the evidence? That you ignore?


In this subforum, we have gone over the radar evidence. That wasn't from TV. Forum members have decoded the actual radar raw data.
In this subforum, we have gone over the FDR evidence. That wasn't from TV. Forum members have decoded the actual FDR data.
In this subforum, we have gone over the Air Traffic Control evidence. That wasn't from TV. Forum members have talked to the actual air traffic controllers of 9/11. One forum member IS an actual air traffic controllers of 9/11.
In this subforum, we have gone over the photo and video evidence. Some of that was from TV, sure, much wasn't. By the way, how do you know what the crater looked like, if not from TV.
In this subforum, we have researched the evidence that was introduced at the Moussaui criminal trial. It includes evidence about the passengers, the planes. We didn't get that from TV. We went to the pertinent web pages of the court.

Not to pile on, but: The Moussaui trial evidence included the GTE airfone and cell phone data, provided for by the involved telecommunications companies. And I think some of it was validated by family members after the fact too (someone can expand on that if they remember it better than I).

There's also the DNA evidence at the Shankesville site.

There's so much to go through.Trying to claim the public's knowledge of the narrative is single-sourced is ludicrous.

 

[fess]

<nitpick> I think you mean 'errant'. It's the truther nonsense that's arrant. </nitpick>

OK, I wuz never vary good at spealling.

 

[beachnut]

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.

You might not know what logic is.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris11e.jpg

... no evidence of a plane, ...

Aircraft parts...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris11c.jpg

... no evidence of a plane, ...

More plane.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris12.jpg

... no evidence of a plane, ...

More parts.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris18sm.jpg

... no evidence of a plane, ...

Eye exam time
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris8sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris21sm.jpg

... no evidence of a plane, ...

Mental problems?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris22sm.jpg

... no evidence of a plane, ...

Willful lie. No logic, a lot of denial.

You lost me.

Yes, you were lost at:
RADAR
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf
If you want, you can get the raw data if you can do real reserach. Wait, you are lost; in a fantasy.
You were lost at FDR
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf
And DNA, no way you can do that kind of reality based science

What does the School of Hard Knocks teach? How to lie? How to spread fantasy and disrespect the dead? How to be more anti-intellectual than TV?

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

You failed the physics...
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf Are those your comments? Wow. What did MIT say?
Please post your proof, using physics. Physics proves it was a jet. Your failed Pyrex ball going 3800 mph at 4.75 degrees proves it was not a missile - a missile still in test in 2001. Are the test guys in on 911? Fantasy is easy, reality for you is ignored.

TeeVee is insulting to one's intelligence. So I mock it.

You are like TeeVee, but more so.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111aStupidClaimsbynutson911_zpsc6226717.jpg
Which one did you photoshop to make a fake crater? What speed were the objects going? What angle?

In your insane fantasy, what angle did your missile hit at?
In your delusion, how does 50,000 pounds of jet fuel fit in the missile?
How much can your missile carry?
Where are Flight 93 passengers, who were tracked by RADAR to the impact site? Do you make fun of all murdered people, and wish the same for your family? Why do you lie like George Bush? You do think he lied right? Why do you do the same? Is he your hero? Regan, you loved him right? Obama thinks your claims are fantasy too. Why do 911 truth forums ban you?
Have you signed up for Pilots who toot?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/
Pilots, who are like you and TV. Will they ban you too?

Why do you make up idiotic lies about 911?

You mistake me for someone who cares ...

 

[Liam]

TeeVee is insulting to one's intelligence. So I mock it.

Oh the irony.


"No evidence of a plane", eh?

:



No, none at all, ....except for all the documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence, that is.

 

[Kid Eager]

Oh the irony.


"No evidence of a plane", eh?

:



No, none at all, ....except for all the documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence, that is.

But what about the evidence for the missiles? You can't just ignore that! Here is the evidence that missiles did it:
..
....
......
......

oops....

 

[yankee451]

You're here for only a short amount of time. You're going to get yourself banned. It's what you people do.

I have genuine curiosity. Why?

Why would I be banned? For not conforming?

 

[yankee451]

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

The oblique trajectories of the projectiles can be calculated from the shape of the crater.

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.

Missles do that.

TEST AND EVALUATION ASSESSMENT
Operational testing showed that JASSM could destroy planned targets with great accuracy and precision, including soft
targets, medium hardened bunkers, and earth-mounded very hard bunkers. In many cases, JASSM destroyed the target
with a single missile. JASSM performed better than predicted against its hardest target, needing less missiles than
predicted to achieve a kill.
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2004/pdf/af/2004JASSM.pdf

ST. LOUIS, Feb. 09, 1998 -- The warhead of the Boeing Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) successfully penetrated a thick, reinforced concrete target with no adverse affect on the casing or the fuze in a recent sled test.

"This successful test is significant in demonstrating the effectiveness of our low-cost, low-risk warhead design for JASSM," said Jim Gates, vice president and program manager for JASSM in the Boeing Phantom Works.

The sled test was conducted Jan. 24 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., using an inert warhead and an instrumented fuze. The purpose was to collect full-scale test data to validate the models used for predicting the performance of the warhead casing and fuze.

"The warhead performed as predicted and met all expectations," said Elmer Lueker, the JASSM payload integrated product team leader in Phantom Works. "After experiencing shock loads as high as 12,000 Gs, there was no deformation of the casing and the fuze timing delay performed to the millisecond." The warhead struck the thick, reinforced concrete target, penetrated through it and traveled another half mile down range. The clean exit hole it left indicates that it had maintained the desired straight trajectory while traversing the thick target.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980209n.htm

Missiles do that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJi2K8mKTRM

 

[yankee451]

Oh the irony.


"No evidence of a plane", eh?

:



No, none at all, ....except for all the documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence, that is.

If the TeeVee is to be considered evidence then it must withstand scrutiny to verify the videos and images are legitimate. You've done that of course.

 

[yankee451]

Jealous. Wish my air crash course gave me a certificate all I got was level 100, 200 and 300 credits towards my degree.

So does your training mean you're more or less likely to think critically?

 

[DGM]

Why would I be banned? For not conforming?

I wasn't going to reply here anymore but, I was so shocked when he actually said something true, I had to applaud this post.

Yes, you will be banned if you do not conform to the forum rules. That is naturally the MA you agreed to when you signed up. Your views are not a bannable offense.



Remember, baby steps, you'll catch up.

 

[beachnut]

Why would I be banned? For not conforming?

How can you be banned? You believe an insane fantasy, you are too far in your own fantasy world to be upset you have failed, because despite you are on the Titanic of silly 911 claims, deep in the pit of ignorance, you believe you are floating on calm seas of superior logic and know-it-all School of Hard Knocks, where your opinion is the same as evidence, and you don't care. You are too nice to be banned. You make up lies about murdered people on 911 and are too afraid to tell the loved ones, who would really love to make your day.

Don't go to the pilots who toot, they will ban you for spreading the truth.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/

You mistake me for someone who cares ...

What does the 451 stand for? Is it the book 451?

What is next now that your fantasy has failed to pass the reality check?

http://yankee451.com/2012/09/11/shanksville-crocodile-tears-for-the-fictional-dead/

Wow, this was a video which is like TV.

If the TeeVee is to be considered evidence then it must withstand scrutiny to verify the videos and images are legitimate. You've done that of course.

Your video is more TV like than TV. How do you keep a straight face when you make up lies?

 

[dafydd]

Why would I be banned? For not conforming?

No, you might get banned for breaking the MA that you signed up to when you joined this site.

 

[threadworm]

The oblique trajectories of the projectiles can be calculated from the shape of the crater.



Missles do that.





Missiles do that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJi2K8mKTRM

OK, now find us a video of two missiles doing it from opposite directions with pinpoint accuracy to form the crater shape you claim is made that way.