How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[dafydd]

So what other facts about the crater indicate a jet crash caused it, because compared to other jet crash sites, Shanksville looks nothing like one.

How many aircraft crashes have you investigated and what training do you have in this field?

 

[Dog Town]

we must all respond as we did to the drooling morons Killtown and Rumpl4skin when they first suggested it.

I hate retreads!

 

[phunk]

My guestimate was pretty close to Google Earth's and compared to yours, my margine of error was zero.

You still don't seem to know what a margin of error is, or how to spell margin.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Just goes to show there's at least one on this board who's able to follow the evidence where ever it leads.

None the less, all it shows is it's about the same length as the wingspan. It is also about the same size as two missiles striking in crossfire. So what other evidence indicates the crater was caused by a jet? How about other empircal examples?

Do any other jet crashes make "wing-shaped" craters? Not that I've seen. Caspian 7908 made a bigger and deeper crater but they didn't need to dig underground to find the jet - it was all around them.

PSA 1771 barely made a dent in the ground but was also spread about the crash site for a great distance, and it was going mach 1.2 and hit at a steeper angle than 93, but they didn't have to dig under the ground to find it.

So what other facts about the crater indicate a jet crash caused it, because compared to other jet crash sites, Shanksville looks nothing like one.

...so it's going to be more hand-waving.

It is disturbing that you want to focus on the differences among crashes involving different aircraft, at different speeds and different attitudes, into different surfaces, by using "data" from pyrex spheres fired into sand at extreme velocities and angles. You also continue to ignore the fact that to get your "evidence", you had to alter the image--in ways that have nothing to do with the way real-world projectiles of any type, size, shape, speed, or composition behave.

All of which continues to ignore (or lie about), the empirical, real-world, objective data; data about which you have been asked myriad times.

At this point, a crashed Cylon Mk.II-B Raider is a more likely explanation than the missiles you claim.

Until you deal with all the real-world, objective, empirical evidence, that won't change.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... It is also about the same size as two missiles striking in crossfire.

Claim not evidenced. You haven't shown that. All you have is some pictures of 1/4" projectiles hitting sand. Some types of projectile at certain angles formed craters with long ejecta furrows leading away. Others didn't. None produced a furrow with a crater at the far end. You haven't given us any reason to believe that a missile would produce a long furrow with a crater at the end.

So what other evidence indicates the crater was caused by a jet?

The same evidence everyone quotes every time you ask that question only to ignore the answers.

 

[Mark F]

Perhaps I am a little thick, or perhaps I missed it in all the dreary back-and-forth over endless minutia in this thread but if we can take this back to basic principals for a moment:

How does firing a missile into an empty field in rural Pennsylvania serve the grand conspiracy of the evil-doers?

I just can't get my head around what the purpose of this would be. I mean, we have three other aircraft (or missiles hidden by projected holograms depending on what your particular brand of reality-distortion is) hitting real targets, so what's up with the fourth re-arranging the landscaping 100 miles from nowhere? What am I missing here?

 

[dafydd]

What am I missing here?

Twoofer obtuseness, that's what you are lacking. And a lack of willingness to urinate on the memory of the victims of 911 in order to attract attention to yourself.

 

[Liam]

Perhaps I am a little thick, or perhaps I missed it in all the dreary back-and-forth over endless minutia in this thread but if we can take this back to basic principals for a moment:

How does firing a missile into an empty field in rural Pennsylvania serve the grand conspiracy of the evil-doers?

I just can't get my head around what the purpose of this would be. I mean, we have three other aircraft (or missiles hidden by projected holograms depending on what your particular brand of reality-distortion is) hitting real targets, so what's up with the fourth re-arranging the landscaping 100 miles from nowhere? What am I missing here?

That's the silliest thing about this theory, there's not even a motive for the evil gubmint to have used missiles.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Anyone willing to answer this question or are personal attacks and sarcasm all I can expect?

Is the crater better explained by two pyrex spheres striking from the inside out?

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/inside-out.png[/qimg]

Or missiles from the outside in?

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/detonated_undetonated.png[/qimg]

How about you show a little good faith and honestly answer some questions that we've asked you.

 

[yankee451]

Perhaps I am a little thick, or perhaps I missed it in all the dreary back-and-forth over endless minutia in this thread but if we can take this back to basic principals for a moment:

How does firing a missile into an empty field in rural Pennsylvania serve the grand conspiracy of the evil-doers?

I just can't get my head around what the purpose of this would be. I mean, we have three other aircraft (or missiles hidden by projected holograms depending on what your particular brand of reality-distortion is) hitting real targets, so what's up with the fourth re-arranging the landscaping 100 miles from nowhere? What am I missing here?

Besides the fact a jet can't do it and missiles can, you're not missing much.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Is the crater better explained by two pyrex spheres striking from the inside out?
Or missiles from the outside in?

You've presented no evidence that it could be explained by either of those things. And neither account for the rest of the evidence.

An aeroplane-sized, aeroplane-shaped hole with aeroplane debis inside and around it, and radar records showing an aeroplane was tracked to that location very strongly supports a much, much simpler explanation.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

a jet can't do it

A jet can't crash in a field? Why not?
A jet can't make a jet-shaped impact crater? Why not?

... and missiles can

Evidence that they can? None. No evidence.

Unimpressive. Not remotely convincing.

 

[Stamuel]

Anyone willing to answer this question or are personal attacks and sarcasm all I can expect?



Is the crater better explained by two pyrex spheres striking from the inside out?



[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/inside-out.png[/qimg]



Or missiles from the outside in?



[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/detonated_undetonated.png[/qimg]

I will offer my opinion. If these are the only two options, I'd opt for Pyrex spheres. They do not explode, so you would only have the impact effects, and no explosion, as the evidence suggests. Plus, there is evidence that projectiles can sometimes form gashes after impact, but none so far that shallow projectiles do so on the way in. Self-debunking on your part again.

A couple comments on this: comparing two completely ridiculous scenarios, yours still seems less plausible as far as I can tell. Second, even if you disagree with someone's conclusion, you can answer their questions. It can be done. FYI. Finally, plane is much more plausible than either of the other two explanations for more reasons than I could list in a lifetime.

 

[yankee451]

You've presented no evidence that it could be explained by either of those things. And neither account for the rest of the evidence.

An aeroplane-sized, aeroplane-shaped hole with aeroplane debis inside and around it, and radar records showing an aeroplane was tracked to that location very strongly supports a much, much simpler explanation.

Simpler explanation's may make you sleep better at night, but they don't address the evidence. No other high speed jet crash made a plane-shaped gash, and the craters that ARE left by real jet crashes are surrounded by the parts of the aircraft.

The evidence doesn't support a plane crash. The only thing going for that story is the rough length of the gash.

 

[Mark F]

Anyone willing to answer this question or are personal attacks and sarcasm all I can expect?

Is the crater better explained by two pyrex spheres striking from the inside out?

Or missiles from the outside in?

Well, since the crater is exactly the size we would expect from a Boeing 757, and the furroughs on either side are the length and angles one would expect from the wings of said Boeing 757, and since approximately 90% of Flight 93 (oddly enough, a Boeing 757) was recovered at the site including the FDR and CVR as well as DNA from everyone aboard I would say we have an excellent case for this damage being caused by Flight 93.

OTOH - The missile you allege was used was not in production or service at the time and was experiencing serious problems in testing. It was also a Navy program and well, where are the nearest naval aircraft that can fire the thing at Shanksville? Why didn't these aircraft show up on radar? Why would a missile designed to attack its target in a near-vertical dive just glide in at a shallow 10-degree angle? How did two such missiles that were not in production or service and failing their test program land in the exact same spot from opposite directions at angles that perfectly fit the profile of Boeing 757 wings? How did they manage to leave Boeing debris at the site and not a shred of missile debris? How did they cram all the bodies of the Flight 93 passengers and crew in those missiles and who had time to grind them up? And again I have to ask as I did a few minutes ago, what purpose is served by firing two missiles into the dirt in rural Pennsylvania? Of the hundreds, if not thousands of people who would have to be involved in this plot, why has not a single one of them come forward with a guilty conscience or to cash in on a lucrative movie-of-the-week deal in 11+ years?

The mind boggles

In other words: The idea that this Shanksville was missiles may be one of the dumbest I have come across in a very long time. Come back though when you get something tangible.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No other high speed jet crash made a plane-shaped gash, and the craters that ARE left by real jet crashes are surrounded by the parts of the aircraft.

You appear to be confused. The crash site was surrounded by parts of the aircraft.

 

[Dog Town]

The evidence doesn't support a plane crash.

Sadly, you have not proven this assertion! Read my sig!

 

[yankee451]

You appear to be confused. The crash site was surrounded by parts of the aircraft.

Not in the aerial views I compared with the other cracsh sites. They had to dig the plane out of the hole, making it inconsistent with every other plane crash example given.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Caspian-7908.png

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/shamnksville-road.png

So if it doesn't look like a jet crash, what does it look like?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/detonated_undetonated.png

Edited by LashL: 

Changed hotlinks to regular links. Please stop reposting the same images over and over, especially the oversized ones that mess up the format of the thread.

 

[Furi]

rather, than mirroring the shots, do you have any pictures of what the second projectile would have created after impacting in the crater made by the first impact.

As the 2nd point of impact would have been deeper, resulting in the second impact being against the crater wall caused by the first, and although a shallow angle in relation to the ground plane, the impact angle would far higher (looking at he geometry of the craters between 55 - 75 degrees would be a reasonable estimate).

And rather than leaving a trail through, would have likely splayed the crater wall opposite the tail, resulting in it looking more like this with the tail of the first. sort of a fantail paintbush.

 

[yankee451]

rather, than mirroring the shots, do you have any pictures of what the second projectile would have created after impacting in the crater made by the first impact.

As the 2nd point of impact would have been deeper, resulting in the second impact being against the crater wall caused by the first, and although a shallow angle in relation to the ground plane, the impact angle would far higher (looking at he geometry of the craters between 55 - 75 degrees would be a reasonable estimate).

And rather than leaving a trail through, would have likely splayed the crater wall opposite the tail, resulting in it looking more like this with the tail of the first. sort of a fantail paintbush.

The first impact would burrow beneath where the second missle came in. In looking at the crater you can see a "divvy" in the lip where the gashes are. I thnk the trajectories are less than 55-75 degrees, but the engineering document should sort it out.

I'm not sure what a model will look like yet, still working on the supporting engineering for this hypothesis, but I appreciate the feedback. Thanks.