How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[yankee451]

What makes you think that the wings are lighter, and hollow, or less massive? Several posters have posted diagrams of the wings, and it would seem that you have ignored them. After all, aren’t the wings carrying the entire weight of the aircraft?

And no, I don’t believe that the entire wing disappeared into the ground. Quite a few of the bits and pieces of debris scattered around the crash site were probably parts of the wing.

Check?

Check? Have you checked? Can you point them out to me?

Why would the entire wing not enter the ground when the entire fuselage and tail did?

This doesn't even work for a cartoon, but then you have the TeeVee which is all you need, eh?

Okay youse pilot types, this fellow claims the wing is more massive than the engine. Can any of you pipe in or are you fine with that statement?

 

[Mudcat]

Okay youse pilot types, this fellow claims the wing is more massive than the engine. Can any of you pipe in or are you fine with that statement?

Only pilots can answer this or can student AMT also answer it?


As it stands, you have no idea what you are talking about. The wings have to bear the weight of everything else on the aircraft including, but not limited to, the engine(s). So yeah, the wings are more massive.

 

[beachnut]

One Photo debunks Missile Fantasy

Engineering model is in the works.

Better get your excuses ready.

Model. An engineering model requires an education in engineering. You have stated clearly, you don't do education.

Agreed - ... I'm of the mind that higher education is simply higher indoctrination. There's a reason a doctorate sounds so close to indoctrinate.

You skipped the hard stuff which is required to make an engineering model. You have failed to calculation the kinetic energy of Flight 93 at impact. When will you supply some numbers. You already applied your Pyrex ball model back-wards for your missile fantasy.

You engineering model will be another fantasy.

Check? Have you checked? Can you point them out to me?

Already showed you photos, you ignored them.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris11e.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris11c.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris12.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris18sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris8sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris21sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris22sm.jpg

Why would the entire wing not enter the ground when the entire fuselage and tail did?

The entire fuselage and tail did not enter the ground. Why lie about it? You have been shown the photos, and you lie.

Fuselage part in the crater. The vast amount of energy at impact, ejected parts all over, mostly on the course at impact. Got physics? No, you don't believe in education.

This doesn't even work for a cartoon, but then you have the TeeVee which is all you need, eh?

? You only do cartoons, you fake an impact with Pyrex balls, and have missiles which can't make the crater.

Okay youse pilot types, this fellow claims the wing is more massive than the engine. Can any of you pipe in or are you fine with that statement?

The wings weigh over 50,000 pounds at impact. How much do engines weigh?

Do you do any math before you post nonsense?

You are not the only person with delusions on 911.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...d-in-the-empty-field-outside-shanksville.html

 

[Kid Eager]

Check? Have you checked? Can you point them out to me?

Why would the entire wing not enter the ground when the entire fuselage and tail did?

This doesn't even work for a cartoon, but then you have the TeeVee which is all you need, eh?

Okay youse pilot types, this fellow claims the wing is more massive than the engine. Can any of you pipe in or are you fine with that statement?

Talk about grasping at straws. So many questions but so little evidence.

Still waiting for evidence to support your non plane speculation.

 

[yankee451]

Talk about grasping at straws. So many questions but so little evidence.

Still waiting for evidence to support your non plane speculation.

Speaking of evidence - does this ground look soft to you? If it was so soft it could swallow a plane, why use a backhoe? Weren't they afraid of the backhoe sinking? Or is the backhoe needed because the soil is so rocky?

Did they dust the engine off after the backhoe unearthed it?

If the backhoe bucket had just unearthed this engine, why does it look like the engine was dropped in an existing hole? Did they sweep the thing off for a photo-op or what?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Engineering model is in the works.

Better get your excuses ready.

Will your "engineering model" explain:

the FDR

the debris

the RADAR track

the DNA

the parts numbers

the fireball

what happened to the 757

what happened to the passengers

...or will you just cross those out and pretend that means something?

 

[Justin39640]

Engineering model is in the works.

Better get your excuses ready.

MSPaintCAD?

 

[Mudcat]

Yankee...you didn't seriously just post that nonsense, right?

 

[Justin39640]

Speaking of evidence - does this ground look soft to you? If it was so soft it could swallow a plane, why use a backhoe? Weren't they afraid of the backhoe sinking? Or is the backhoe needed because the soil is so rocky?

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris22sm.jpg[/qimg]

Did they dust the engine off after the backhoe unearthed it?

If the backhoe bucket had just unearthed this engine, why does it look like the engine was dropped in an existing hole? Did they sweep the thing off for a photo-op or what?

The backhoe's downward velocity isn't 500 mph...

 

[Justin39640]

And my guess is that's an excavator, not a backhoe.

 

[abaddon]

Speaking of evidence - does this ground look soft to you?

Yep.

If it was so soft it could swallow a plane, why use a backhoe?

Because it is quicker than using a spoon.

Weren't they afraid of the backhoe sinking?

No, because it wasn't travelling at 500 mph+. Do you even think about what you write?

Or is the backhoe needed because the soil is so rocky?

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris22sm.jpg[/qimg]

Spoon. See above.

Did they dust the engine off after the backhoe unearthed it?

That would generally be the procedure, yes.

If the backhoe bucket had just unearthed this engine, why does it look like the engine was dropped in an existing hole?

It doesn't.

Did they sweep the thing off for a photo-op or what?

No, the photo is a record of what WAS found. You think records are not made at crash sites?

 

[yankee451]

The backhoe's downward velocity isn't 500 mph...

How do you know? At a 40 degree angle, what was the downward velocity of the jet?

 

[yankee451]

And my guess is that's an excavator, not a backhoe.

It's a common mistake:

The backhoe's downward velocity isn't 500 mph...

 

[yankee451]

. You think records are not made at crash sites?

Sure I do. From the looks of it they staged the parts in a hole they dug somewhere.

 

[abaddon]

Sure I do. From the looks of it they staged the parts in a hole they dug somewhere.

Doesn't look like that to me at all.

 

[Kid Eager]

Sure I do. From the looks of it they staged the parts in a hole they dug somewhere.

Oh, in that case, we don't need to go any further. Forget the science - let's draw a conclusion from the way it looks....

I'm having deja-vu (from the "scientific study" thread):

Aha! But there's the clever bit: What happens if your make your foregone conclusion and the crash site contains no evidence of your conclusion?

Drum roll......

The evidence doesn't exist for anything!

"So, I went to the site looking for evidence that this crash was caused by drug-pandas flying ultralite gliders. I honestly could find nothing to falsify this cause, and couldn't find anything that would suggest that there was another cause."

"But what about the debris?"

"Oh, that was unrelated to the crash."

"Hang on - if there were pandas in ultralites, where are the remains of them?"

"I said they caused the crash, not that they were *part* of the crash. The pandas flew off afterwards."

"But nobody saw these pandas."

"How do you know? Have you asked *everybody*? "

"Ummm... no."

"Well there you go then. I'm off to write my report. I suggest in future that you do your research!"

 

[yankee451]

Oh, in that case, we don't need to go any further. Forget the science - let's draw a conclusion from the way it looks....

I'm having deja-vu (from the "scientific study" thread):

All over this thead there are people hopping up and down screaming about how the site "looks" just like a jet crash. That and the TeeVee were the only the "scientific study" they needed. That's the source of your deja-vu.

 

[yankee451]

Doesn't look like that to me at all.

I know-ow! It looks just like a jet crash. Uncanny, isn't it.

 

[threadworm]

All over this thead there are people hopping up and down sreaming about how the site "looks" just like a jet crash. That and the TeeVee are the only the "scientific study" they needed. That's the source of your deja-vu.

And that interpretation of the way that it looks is supported by evidence.

Your interpretation of the way that it looks is supported neither by evidence nor by the way that it looks.

 

[Justin39640]

It's a common mistake:

Deceptive edit... nice.