How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[Slowvehicle]

-duplicate-

 

[Mark F]

You don't know me or my motivations. Attacking the messenger - thanks for your opinions.

My only opinion is you are peddling your case in the wrong forum. If you are so sure you are correct then the defense teams for KSM and ZM need this information. You should be doing your part to set these innocent men free, not wasting your time in here.

So what is stopping you?

 

[NoahFence]

You don't know me or my motivations. Attacking the messenger - thanks for your opinions.

Your motivation here is crystal clear. Keep typing until you get someone so upset that they get suspendEd or banned.

 

[Slowvehicle]

How many jets disappearing into the ground have you witnessed?

You are using an...odd...meaning of "disappeared". Debris was recovered from miles away, and from inside the crater. The FDR was recovered from inside the crater. Forensic evidence of the identity of the passengers was recovered from inside the crater and scattered within the other debris.

I have not "witnessed" any jet airliners impacting loamy ground at high speeds and steep angles, but I have seen evidence of similar crashes.

I have not faked up a photoshop lie. I have not resorted to missiles that were not available at the time, and that do not even now have the required precision. I have not invented secret launches, or phantom launch platforms, or right-angle physics. I have, it is true, depended upon the reports of experts. Still better than mere flights of perfervid imagination.

I mean, really--you have not even responded to the probability that it really was a Cylon Mk.II-B Raider that caused the crater.

 

[chris lz]

Did you demand the same evidence for the claim a 757 disappeared into the ground?

No, I didn't. The only reason to ask for such evidence is if someone provided some actual numbers (who has so far?) to prove the crash site impossible, and for which no crash expert could provide an answer. So armed only with personal intuition, you have no scientific case to rule out the possibility F93 crashed the way it did. If the possibility cannot be ruled out by science, then by definition it cannot be claimed with any certitude as "impossible." You are thus turning logic on its head. BY DEFINITION, if you can't prove something impossible, the possibility can't be ruled out. But you rule it out despite this.

regards
Chris

 

[JohnG]

How many jets disappearing into the ground have you witnessed?

How many jets were piloted by people who were deliberately trying to crash the jet before an (understandably) angry group of doomed passengers could overpower them and take control of the aircraft? Airplanes crash all the time, but only a few of them are deliberately driven into the ground. Maybe you should compare Shanksville to those sorts of deliberate crashes?

Oh, that's right, you either have me on ignore or are pretending to ignore me. That's fine. My questions are mostly for any fence sitters who may be lurking out there.

Ignore away, brave Truthseeker!

 

[chris lz]

Did you demand the same evidence for the claim a 757 disappeared into the ground?

Again, what physics textbook says: the fuselage of an airliner may bury itself under soil; but if the wings remain attached to it, the wings are not permitted to follow suit.

Where are you getting this from?

 

[chris lz]

To put it another way, for the sake of argument I will admit I cannot prove with 100% certitude the physics of F93. But I never stated I could. However, it is your express claim that you have indeed proven it impossible. Thus my not providing an absolute mathematical proof is in accord with my stated position. But failing to provide a proof for your position contradicts your own words. You say you have one, but don't provide it.

I trust you see the difference.

 

[fess]

Anyone who insists a 757 can disappear into the ground is either lying or a fool, but it's up to you to stop believing them.

Where has anyone claimed that Flt 93 completely disappeared into the ground? Wasn’t one of the engines found above ground?

 

[leftysergeant]

How many jets disappearing into the ground have you witnessed?

The Value Jet that went down in the Everglades left even less on the surface.

 

[jaydeehess]

If my measurements seem off, please correct them. If 18 inches seems wrong for the measurements of a person's shoulders, sing out. If a two lane road doesn't measure 20 feet, don't take my word for it, do the research to correct me.

I was being generous with these measurements, but if you think they're wrong, by all means, show me where 127 feet of wing disappeared into the ground, including the road base (which are usually crushed rock).

If I'm wrong, show me where.

Do something other than mock.

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/120-feet.png[/qimg]

Everyone here rejects your methodology and accepts the vast amount of evidence that indicates that flt 93 crashed in Shakesville and created the crater.
No one seems at all convinced , likely due to your inability to demonstrate any evidence to support it, that twin (or triplet) missiles created the crater.
Why would you expect others then to follow you down the rabbit hole?

 

[jaydeehess]

The Value Jet that went down in the Everglades left even less on the surface.

Another went into a river in Indonesia, same result.

In fact if one watches the show "Mayday" one sees many witnesses to multiple crashes saying things like "there's nothing that looks like and aircraft"

 

[jaydeehess]

Where has anyone claimed that Flt 93 completely disappeared into the ground? Wasn’t one of the engines found above ground?

Indeed, and not even in the crater.

 

[yankee451]

Where has anyone claimed that Flt 93 completely disappeared into the ground? Wasn’t one of the engines found above ground?

So the lighter, hollow, less-massive wing the engine was attached to disappeared into the ground leaving a gash, but the heavier, denser, more-massive engine bounced into the woods but didn't leave a crater in the wing gash.

Check.

 

[twinstead]

So the lighter, hollow, less-massive wing the engine was attached to disappeared into the ground, but the heavier, denser, more-massive engine bounced into the woods.

Check.

simple personal Incredulity. The bane of debaters throughout history

 

[waypastvne]

Caspian 7908 made a bigger and deeper crater but they didn't need to dig underground to find the jet

Not True.

 

[waypastvne]

So the lighter, hollow, less-massive wing the engine was attached to disappeared into the ground leaving a gash, but the heavier, denser, more-massive engine bounced into the woods but didn't leave a crater in the wing gash.

Check.

The engines of an aircraft are subjected to forces that the rest of the airframe are not. These include thrust, rotational inertia, centrifugal force, and gyroscopic force. Gyroscopic force is the reason the why the starboard engine is buried straight down in the crater and the port engine is over in the pond.

Gyroscopic force will produce a resistance force to any change in its current state.

N591UA was rolling hard right at the time of impact, so the gyroscopic resistance force produced by the roll would look like this:

When you take a real close look at the details of the crash they all line up perfectly.

 

[JohnG]

FYI: yankee451 has decided to spend more time with his family over the next 24 hours. Probably no point in bombarding him with questions until he is able to respond.

 

[Starving for Truth]

My only opinion is you are peddling your case in the wrong forum. If you are so sure you are correct then the defense teams for KSM and ZM need this information. You should be doing your part to set these innocent men free, not wasting your time in here.
So what is stopping you?

"Can't somebody else do it?"

 

[twinstead]

"Can't somebody else do it?"

Do'h!