How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[Ranb]

This video demonstrates how crusie missiles striking at trajectories of less than ten degrees from horizontal caused the gash at Shanksville.

Well I spent about 3 minutes watching the video and have a few questions before I potentially waste any more of my life watching the rest.

They insist the 757 disappeared into the ground.

Is "they" the official position? I have never seen any official claims that the aircraft disappeared into the ground. The official story has it that some parts were in the ground and others were scattered.

How are these other jet crash sites supposed to resemble Shanksville other than that a jet crashed? Were these other crashes at 400 plus mph nose first into the ground or were they controlled flight into ground?

What experience did Barron and Delano have with other jet crash sites? Exactly what other crashes were they comparing United 93 with?

So far I think the person making the claims in the video thinks his listeners are stupid. Got anything to support the claims made in the video?

Ranb

 

[yankee451]

Well I spent about 3 minutes watching the video and have a few questions before I potentially waste any more of my life watching the rest.



Is "they" the official position? I have never seen any official claims that the aircraft disappeared into the ground. The official story has it that some parts were in the ground and others were scattered.

How are these other jet crash sites supposed to resemble Shanksville other than that a jet crashed? Were these other crashes at 400 plus mph nose first into the ground or were they controlled flight into ground?

What experience did Barron and Delano have with other jet crash sites? Exactly what other crashes were they comparing United 93 with?

So far I think the person making the claims int he video thinks his listeners are stupid. Got anything to support the claims made so far?

Ranb

Well I read your half of your first sentence but lost interest.

CBS News transportation correspondent Mark Strassmann reports the FBI found both its cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder intact, as deep as 25 feet underground. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-20102954/a-look-at-united-flight-93-ten-years-later-/

Flight 93 Ambassador: 'Over 90% of plane found, basically all from in the ground'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qZP_GYXNKMs

 

[beachnut]

Well I read your half of your first sentence but lost interest.



http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5459/522/1600/debris.93.engine.jpg

Flight 93 Ambassador: 'Over 90% of plane found, basically all from in the ground'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qZP_GYXNKMs

You debunked yourself; showing the engine. good job, short thread of fantasy. Flight 93's engine in the crater?

How many accidents have you investigated with aircraft? I have experience with aircraft accidents, I have owned the scene after fire turned it over to me - you don't seem to know the first thing about aircraft, and physics. Why is that?

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response.

oops, flt 93 FDR, in the crater, your fantasy missile crater, filled with dead remains, you deny

how nice you are, to deny people who took action on 911, figure out 911 in minutes, and you can't do the same given the answer, and 11 years. New low for critical thinking

 

[The Big Dog]

You debunked yourself; showing the engine. good job, short thread of fantasy. Flight 93's engine in the crater?

Yeah, that was pretty hilarious!

claim: the "plane" disappeared, in fact it was the cruise missile.
response: the plane disappeared?
claim: yeah, here are the plane parts!

Fantastic!

 

[beachnut]

Yeah, that was pretty hilarious!

claim: the "plane" disappeared, in fact it was the cruise missile.
response: the plane disappeared?
claim: yeah, here are the plane parts!

Fantastic!

The old, 911 truth say one thing, and post proof they have insane claims.

Show the engine, which can't fit in a cruise missile, and an engine which has more KE than a cruise missile, ... etc. Can't believe someone has not figure out 911 given 11 years.

How does this fit in the missile, the missile which did not exist in 2001?

 

[Mudcat]

Okay... What about the fact that this is not the first air crash remotely like this? There have been several where the aircraft practically buried itself, leaving a crater. They left behind carnage that looked not unlike a missile strike and very little that could be identified as an aircraft.

So why must this be a missile strike?

That 52 that went down at an airshow where the pilot attempted a maneuver beyond the aircraft's abilities comes to mind immediately.

Another one that comes immediately to mind is the Payne Stewart crash.

Not to mention the Air Florida DC-9 that piled it in into the Everglades

Fitz

It seems we are on the same page here, so... Yankee, why must this particular air crash be a missile strike?

 

[Spanx]

I found the answer on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGk4AKOwJbc&feature=youtube

 

[yankee451]

So with scientific, eye witness testimony, circumstantial and physical evidence to support dense penetrating warheads of cruise missiles striking in crossfire at trajectories of less than 10 degrees from horizontal, what do you plane-huggers have to prove a plane struck?

Hearsay from the most-likely suspects.

 

[yankee451]

I found the answer on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGk4AKOwJbc&feature=youtube

the video doesn't play

 

[fitzgibbon]

what do you plane-huggers have to prove a plane struck?

Reality. And you?

Fitz

 

[beachnut]

So with scientific, eye witness testimony, circumstantial and physical evidence to support dense penetrating warheads of cruise missiles striking in crossfire at trajectories of less than 10 degrees from horizontal, what do you plane-huggers have to prove a plane struck?

Hearsay from the most-likely suspects.

You use testimony from a woman who saw a plane go under the wires, barely miss her SUV? lol, you sure are gullible. You used failed testimony from a video produced by a failed 911 truther, as your evidence. Good for you. Ignore science, the FDR, and RADAR, and use your own fantasy;

Do you ever study your own silly pile of nonsense?

how scientific can you get. You win the prize.

 

[NoahFence]

Who (if he had an ounce of sense) would change his icke avatar since it does such an effective job of gainsaying his 'arguments'. Of course, it'll be too late as I have a screengrab of it as it is to preserve for posterity how it is at present

Tant pit!

Fitz

Indeed. It's an excellent example of how fragile those towers really were.

 

[LSSBB]

So with scientific, eye witness testimony, circumstantial and physical evidence to support dense penetrating warheads of cruise missiles striking in crossfire at trajectories of less than 10 degrees from horizontal, what do you plane-huggers have to prove a plane struck?

Hearsay from the most-likely suspects.

Where is this evidence of which you speak, you know, positive ID of the missile and missile parts, inventory trail, confessions, etc.?

 

[NoahFence]

Well I read your half of your first sentence but lost interest.



[qimg]http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5459/522/1600/debris.93.engine.jpg[/qimg]

Flight 93 Ambassador: 'Over 90% of plane found, basically all from in the ground'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qZP_GYXNKMs

Wait, so your proof that there was no plane is a photo showing parts of a plane?

 

[yankee451]

Where is this evidence of which you speak, you know, positive ID of the missile and missile parts, inventory trail, confessions, etc.?

Ohhh - here we have a self-proclaimed JREF intellectual demanding proof he knows will not be available in the public domain.

How about you use the evidence available to us all to support any single one of your convictions?

 

[Mudcat]

So with scientific, eye witness testimony, circumstantial and physical evidence to support dense penetrating warheads of cruise missiles striking in crossfire aircraft at trajectories of less than 10 degrees from horizontal 41°, what do you plane-huggers no-planers have to prove a plane missiles struck?

Hearsay from the most-likely suspects.

Fixed that for you.

 

[yankee451]

Wait, so your proof that there was no plane is a photo showing parts of a plane?

Have you watched the 8 minute video? If not, why are you commenting?

 

[NoahFence]

So with scientific, eye witness testimony, circumstantial and physical evidence to support dense penetrating warheads of cruise missiles striking in crossfire at trajectories of less than 10 degrees from horizontal, what do you plane-huggers have to prove a plane struck?

Hearsay from the most-likely suspects.

Well, there's that photo that YOU provided.

Thanks!

/thread

 

[NoahFence]

Have you watched the 8 minute video? If not, why are you commenting?

Because it's an open forum. Why would I watch the video, when I know for a fact it's just recycled BS from other morons who can't prove a single thing.

 

[LSSBB]

Because it's an open forum. Why would I watch the video, when I know for a fact it's just recycled BS from other morons who can't prove a single thing.

That's ok, I saw the video, it doesn't provide any real evidence of anything other than a plane.