How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[Andy_Ross]

If Flight 93 didn't crash into the field, where is it now?
Where are the passengers and crew?
Where did it go after it took off and where did it land?

How did the wrecked parts of the aircraft get to the crash site?
How did the remains and DNA of the passengers and crew get to the wreck site?

 

[Kid Eager]

Probably the way that would require the fewest people to know.

Evidence.............?

 

[threadworm]

Evidence.............?

Or even an answer to the question that was actually asked...

 

[SUSpilot]

Ok, let's assume that you're onto something here. You're not, but, just to see where you're going to take this.

Tell us about how the military managed to put together the legend, one that hangs together so well. This would include, but not be limited to:

Radar data

Recordings of ATC transmissions

Corporate and local FAA records of an aircraft taking off from Newark that is consistent with the ATC data

Ear witness accounts of said recordings

Serial number provenance of the aircraft - that is the pieces trace back to that particular airplane

Air phone conversations between those on the aircraft and people on the ground

Records of people getting on those aircraft

Families and friends of the victims mourning their loss, recounting internally consistent stories about their friends and loved ones.

ad infinitum

It's not just about your reverse-engineering your conclusions to fit the fact of an impact crater in Shanksville, PA; the cover story has to fit around it, seamlessly, at all points, for the conspiracy to work.

I don't see how it can be done, so enlighten me.

 

[Oystein]

...
On what do you base this assumption? Meteorites don’t do that in the moon’s atmosphere, why would you think missiles with penetrating warheads would in earth’s atmosphere? On the one hand a jet disappears, but on the other a missile bounces off?

The missile bouncing was premised on a <10° impact angle.
Nobody claims that UA93 had a <10° impact angle.
Why do you ask such a stupid question?

...
No, I looked long and hard at the damage and ticked off the list of possibilities until I arrived at the only one that fits all the evidence.

How does it fit the radar evidence? You know that radar records track UA93 all the way to a field near Shanksville?
How does it fit the FDR data? You know that the FDR was recovered and decoded, and its data works out to a pilot-induced crash in a field near Shanksville?
How does it fit the evidence of debris and human remains found in and around the crater in a field near Shanksville?
How does it fit the DNA data won from human remains found in and around the crater in a field near Shanksville?
How does it fit the evidence established by eye witnesses who saw a plane, plane parts, human remains?

In short: What evidence did you consider at all, beyond one (1) eye witness testimony and the shape of the crater?

Oh, I'll spare you the effort. Here are all the answers:
It doesn't
It doesn't
It doesn't
It doesn't
It doesn't
None.

It is still in its infancy but shouldn't be too difficult to prove or disprove with "Craters Producebdy Missile Impacts"
...

I haven't followed this nonsense from the beginning, so I may have missed something here - are you really comparing the shape of meteorite craters on the moon with craters created by cruise missiles, and believe same angles would create same shapes???
Because if you did, you'd... urrr how can I say this without running afoul of my Membership agreement ... you'd be rather foolish!

Major differences between both that I can think of would be:
1. Moon's surface is extremely dry; it's loose dust on bedrock. Shanksville's surface is deep top soil with considerable water content over sedimentary ground.
2. Meteorite is MUCH MUCH faster than missile; acts mostly by transfering kinetic energy and momentum, both of which have vectors along that <10° impact angle; the direction of this vector directly bears on shape of crater, and where debris falls. Missile has low kinetic energy, it's the explosive ordinance that moves most of the debris, and does so in all directions (the velocity of the shockwave is far greater than that of the missile before impact). Crater shape depends largely on where the payload detonated (above, on, below ground surface).

What a stupid theory!

 

[cjnewson88]

Yankee, do you know over 4000 people worked the Shanksville site? From local law enforcement, to FBI, NTSB, local contractors and even civilian volunteers. Are they all in on this vast conspiracy? Are they liars? When you contacted these people, what was their response to your theory? Have you contacted them? Anyone? Who have you talked to about this 'missile' theory? Have you even bothered to talk to anyone out of conspiracy forums who was involved in this scene?

I'm going to guess no. Well, there are some here who have. Including myself. I have spoken to Mal Fuller, the watch supervisor from KPIT, who among other things told me how he remembers getting called over to have the UA93 target bought to his attention, and how he watched it travel right over his center. In fact, there is even a recording of this occurring;

Skip to 1:02:20


Fact is fact Yankee, UA93 crashed in shankville, and no amount of hand waving by you will ever change that.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I think it's important to remember that other explanations are just as likely,

My money's on these guys having something to do the great 91/1 Inside Job before it was a cruise missile.

 

[Liam]

The horror. Someone who dares to think for himself.

More like - someone who dreams up complete nonsense then ignores the mass of evidence that proves his stupid theory wrong.

 

[sts60]

On what do you base this assumption? Meteorites don’t do that in the moon’s atmosphere, why would you think missiles with penetrating warheads would in earth’s atmosphere?...

yankee451, I know a couple of other people mentioned this, but I'm curious as to whether you think the Moon has a sensible atmosphere, i.e., one that would be noticeable by ordinary means. (I noticed someone in one of these threads said something about you denying the Apollo landings, so my curiousity was piqued.) Just wondering about that point; I'm not trying to derail the thread. Thanks.

 

[beachnut]

I'm not done with the missile thread,
Compare to Fl. 93 - wing gash and no debris:

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/flight-93-crash-site.jpg

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/flight-93-crash-site.jpg

So we have no visible debris field but the authorities insist the deeper they dug, the more jet they found.
.

This is your best photo. From a movie. This is not Shankesville. You can't get anything right. Your missile was not in the inventory on 911. Makes your fantasy dumber.

You have been shown a debris field that is consistent with a 757 going 487.5 knots at impact, at -41.1 degrees pitch, and 142 degrees of roll. You got the wrong photo, and you got a super dumb claim.

You failed for 11 years to understand 911, now you SPAM the world with lies. Better stick to stealing candy from kids.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If you wanted to create a plausible 757 crash site, would you;

a) Fly a 757 into the ground

or

b) i) Fly a 757 into the ground at some secret location
ii) Dig up all the debris
iii) Transport it all to the fake site
iv) Attempt to fire multiple missiles (of a type you don't have) into the same impact point from different directions
v) Rush in and quickly bury most of the debris in the hole and scatter the rest as ejecta
vi) Threaten, cajole or buy off everyone who knows the radar data is fake, the black box data is fake, the eyewitness reports are fake, the passengers are fake...

Why would you do it that way?

 

[NoahFence]

This is your best photo. From a movie. This is not Shankesville. You can't get anything right. Your missile was not in the inventory on 911. Makes your fantasy dumber.

That's not even Shanksville?!?!?

Wow. Speechless.

 

[Mudcat]

Probably the way that would require the fewest people to know.

The fewest people possible?

In order for this conspiracy to work you would need to make the aircraft, passengers and crew to disappear without a trace, make fake Radar readings, seed the crash site with aircraft parts that match those found on the aircraft in question, fire missiles at the site, control the site so that no one will identify anything suspicious, and on and on.

By the end of the day you would need more people in on the conspiracy than was involved with the Apollo program... And this sounds more realistic than what actually happened because?

Help me out here Yankee, because it doesn't make much sense to me why anyone would hold to this particular belief.

 

[yankee451]

Ok, let's assume that you're onto something here. You're not, but, just to see where you're going to take this.

Tell us about how the military managed to put together the legend, one that hangs together so well. This would include, but not be limited to:

Radar data

Recordings of ATC transmissions

Corporate and local FAA records of an aircraft taking off from Newark that is consistent with the ATC data

Ear witness accounts of said recordings

Serial number provenance of the aircraft - that is the pieces trace back to that particular airplane

Air phone conversations between those on the aircraft and people on the ground

Records of people getting on those aircraft

Families and friends of the victims mourning their loss, recounting internally consistent stories about their friends and loved ones.

ad infinitum

It's not just about your reverse-engineering your conclusions to fit the fact of an impact crater in Shanksville, PA; the cover story has to fit around it, seamlessly, at all points, for the conspiracy to work.

I don't see how it can be done, so enlighten me.

I'm only addressing the available evidence - it's up to you to deal with the implications. I see your way of dealing with them is denial.

 

[yankee451]

So, what do you say Yankee? Seems like plenty of debris to me, spread over a wide area.

The same thing I said to CJ in post 136.

 

[yankee451]

The missile bouncing was premised on a <10° impact angle.
Nobody claims that UA93 had a <10° impact angle.
Why do you ask such a stupid question?

Look around - it's all the rage.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

... I'm curious as to whether you think the Moon has a sensible atmosphere, i.e., one that would be noticeable by ordinary means. (I noticed someone in one of these threads said something about you denying the Apollo landings, so my curiousity was piqued.)

You may have confused matters by using words like 'sensible' which some may instinctively ignore.

On the other hand, yankee451's reference to Apollo clearly implies he accepts the moon program was real.

Here's a hot spoonful of his wisdom from ATS:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread690103

There really is nothing new under the sun. I recall watching the moonwalks on TV as a child, glued to the TV beside my dad…I had posters of the moonwalks on my bedroom walls, I built models of the spacecraft, and I stayed up late to read books about the missions; I was a true fan. Now however, when I look at the images of the props used for the Lunar Modules, I marvel how they could have fooled us then, and how they still fool so many of us now.

NASA had become the new age priests using the latest media sleight of hand and flash powder to dazzle while they picked our pockets. I’m sure many folks reading this will scoff at my words. but think on this...TV became mainstream only in the 1950s, when more than half of American households had one, but by 1962, 90% of American households had a TV set, making it the preferred medium for any good propagandist. Seven years later, they were broadcasting LIVE from the moon. What do you think is more likely…technology had advanced to such a degree (but is now unaffordable and no longer repeatable), or the moon walks were simply propaganda using the best medium available? I say the only thing preventing a return trip to the moon is not the Van Allen belt, but Adobe Photoshop.

ETA - Amusingly, post#2 in the "No Planer calls for scientific study" thread is from moonhoaxer FatFreddy88:

Truthers who promote the no plane theory are either disinfo agents trying to discredit the truth movement, or morons.

 

[SUSpilot]

I'm only addressing the available evidence - it's up to you to deal with the implications. I see your way of dealing with them is denial.

Ummm. No. You've come up with a theory. You've said the military can control the media and has been doing so since the time of Spartacus. I've asked you to tell us, in conjunction with your cruise missile theory, how this is all supposed to work in an integrated fashion, where no one, other than yourself, has detected the flaws.

Feel free to enlighten us as to how you believe this all worked.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm only addressing the available evidence - it's up to you to deal with the implications. I see your way of dealing with them is denial.

Blatant Lie.

 

[dafydd]

The lunar atmosphere: History, status, current problems, and context
~S. Alan Stern

So tenuous that it has no effect on meteorites and bugger all to do with 911.