How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[Mark F]

Can you show me any other crater left by a plane crash that looks like Shansville?

Wedge-shaped crater? No.

Absense of debris visible from the air? No.

Can you show us any crater left by a pair or triplet of JASSM missiles that looks like Shanksville?

A wedge shaped crater? No?

And why is there suddenly a requirement that debris should be visible from the air? What is the minimum acceptable altitude from which debris should be visible? How big does the debris need to be? Why do you come up with arbitrary standards that other people have to meet but you don't? Isn't that the hallmark of a dishonest argument?

 

[tsig]

Are these my only choices? Who's administering this test? What are your credentials?

Remember, I'm the guy saying that based on other jet crashes, Shanksville looks nothing like one. But if it doesn't look like a jet crash, what DOES it look like. Fortunately NASA gives us a clue with photos of oblique meteroite impacts on the moon.

You fellas are the plane-huggers.

Do you have any pictures of other craters made my two missiles hitting the ground crosswise? If not there goes your "It looks like" argument.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The people who claim they had to dig 25 feet down to find the FDR are the same people who claim they found all the DNA of the non-existant passengers. Your claim that pieces of jet were found around the crater is hogwash. Are you expecting them to actually report missile debris to you? Who are you to them other than someone to foot the bill for their wars?

So, you are just going to lie about the pictures you have been shown?
Where is Flight 93?
What happened to the passengers?
What about the RADAR track?
What about the FDR data that demonstrated the same flight as the RADAR track?
How did the conspirators reach into the future and steal missiles that were not available in 2001, and which even now do not have the performance capabilities needed to imitate the crater that you faked together in photoshop?

Out of curiosity, how many people do you believe is the least number that must have been involved just to create your fantasy scenario?

 

[NoahFence]

Why are you people still requesting answers from a person not even remotely interested in giving them? This "theory" is the single most retarded thing put forth by anybody not named Dusty. Just let it die.

Christ on a stick.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Why are you people still requesting answers from a person not even remotely interested in giving them? This "theory" is the single most retarded thing put forth by anybody not named Dusty. Just let it die.

Christ on a stick.

But...don't you understand?

Someone is WRONG on the INTERNET!!!

PS: I'm pretty sure yankee has me on ignore. Makes it a little easier to avoid replying to his nonsense.

 

[Mark F]

Why are you people still requesting answers from a person not even remotely interested in giving them? This "theory" is the single most retarded thing put forth by anybody not named Dusty. Just let it die.

Christ on a stick.

Well folks, looks like we have wasted another 29 precious interweb pages on yet another person who came up with the answer first, fabricated the evidence he needed to make that work and denies or ignores everything else. And what is he doing with his remarkable evidence? Pining for attention in an obscure internet forum. Best at this point to stop giving that which it so craves.

I'm outa here.

 

[Justin39640]

You object to the war in Iraq? Guess what, so do I, but there are already perfectly valid reasons to object not only to the war itself but how we got into the war, you don't need to invent any more. On the contrary, doing so makes it harder to address the actual valid objections because they have been are buried by CTists under some unwieldy and absurd George Orwell meets George Lucas conspiracy thriller.

Agreed 1000%.

 

[Mudcat]

I feel your pain.

No, you really don't.

I know this because the rest of my post contained a definitive statement. Here, since you ignored it, allow me to repeate it for you: Even experimental missiles must be inventoried where they are stored for testing.

The portion of your blog that you had quoted, on the other hand, is weasel wording. You avoided making any kind of definitive statement.

Not even remotely the same for reasons outlined ad nasea.

Face it, the only reason you believe what you believe is because everyone else does and the only reason they do is because they saw it aaalll on the TeeVee. You have no evidence to back up any of your claims. Sniping and squriming and twisting words is not a discussion. You have nothing.

The reason I believe that it's similar but not the same to other air crashes is that we have a lot of other air crashes to compare it to.

All you have is that it might have been missiles. Well, yes you are absolutely right, it might have been missiles. And it might have also been a test firing of the Death Star that the government denies is being built. It also might have been a section of alternate reality protruding on our own. However it was none of these things.

 

[yankee451]

You are being ridiculed because you are wrong and because you are incapable of honest debate. Dozens of people here have presented you with thoughtful, detailed posts explaining exactly why you are wrong and you almost invariably respond with limp one liners and insults.

You'd think you'd try to state your case rather than belittle the messenger.

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Hypocrisy is the state of promoting or trying to enforce standards, attitudes, lifestyles virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually hold and may even regularly violate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

 

[yankee451]

All you have is that it might have been missiles. Well, yes you are absolutely right, it might have been missiles. And it might have also been a test firing of the Death Star that the government denies is being built. It also might have been a section of alternate reality protruding on our own. However it was none of these things.

And it might have been a jet, but there is more evidence for to support a "Death Star". Missiles fit the bill, but jets don't and the only reason you believe they do is because you saw it on the TeeVee and because the rest of the herd believes it.

 

[yankee451]

Agreed 1000%.

Shocked, SHOCKED!

 

[yankee451]

So, you are just going to lie about the pictures you have been shown?
Where is Flight 93?
What happened to the passengers?
What about the RADAR track?
What about the FDR data that demonstrated the same flight as the RADAR track?
How did the conspirators reach into the future and steal missiles that were not available in 2001, and which even now do not have the performance capabilities needed to imitate the crater that you faked together in photoshop?

Out of curiosity, how many people do you believe is the least number that must have been involved just to create your fantasy scenario?

The topic is "how the Shanksville crater was made".

It is not "how do you explain all the implications about how the Shanksville crater was made"

 

[chris lz]

Are these my only choices? Who's administering this test? What are your credentials?

Remember, I'm the guy saying that based on other jet crashes, Shanksville looks nothing like one. But if it doesn't look like a jet crash, what DOES it look like. Fortunately NASA gives us a clue with photos of oblique meteroite impacts on the moon.

You fellas are the plane-huggers.

Maybe if I presented a question as a question rather than a choice you would be more comfortable answering it?

Do you think it's possible an airliner may crash such that its fuselage burrows under soil rendering it invisible, or very nearly so, including its wings?

Thanks

 

[threadworm]

The topic is "how the Shanksville crater was made".

It is not "how do you explain all the implications about how the Shanksville crater was made"

The answer to the thread title is:

"By a large jet hitting the ground at speed".

The bit you objected to in the previous post was the evidence that supported that idea. I can understand why you would object to that, because accepting it would mean that you have pretty much wasted a hefty chunk of your life and would render your existence pointless.

Your answer seems to rest largely on your faked and entirely mistaken and unsupported version of how you think two missiles will behave, and nothing else.

 

[LSSBB]

Agreed 1000%.

+1

 

[LSSBB]

The answer to the thread title is:

"By a large jet hitting the ground at speed".

The bit you objected to in the previous post was the evidence that supported that idea. I can understand why you would object to that, because accepting it would mean that you have pretty much wasted a hefty chunk of your life and would render your existence pointless.

Your answer seems to rest largely on your faked and entirely mistaken and unsupported version of how you think two missiles will behave, and nothing else.

+1.

Looks like Mr. Yankee needs to look up the Myth of Sunk Costs.

 

[yankee451]

The answer to the thread title is:

"By a large jet hitting the ground at speed".

The bit you objected to in the previous post was the evidence that supported that idea. I can understand why you would object to that, because accepting it would mean that you have pretty much wasted a hefty chunk of your life and would render your existence pointless.

Your answer seems to rest largely on your faked and entirely mistaken and unsupported version of how you think two missiles will behave, and nothing else.

Your jet theory would be great if it was possible for a jet to disappear into the ground, which if it did occur you should be able to demonstrate. I have provided a better explanation for the crater, but you haven't even tried.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Your jet theory...

AKA reality.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You'd think you'd try to state your case rather than belittle the messenger.

The case against your fantasy has been stated ad nauseam. And you presented your own mad fantasy so you don't get to hide behind pretending you're 'only the messenger'. You pulled all of this out of your own backside. Nobody else made it up for you. Genuine truthers spurn you.

And it might have been a jet, but there is more evidence for to support a "Death Star". Missiles fit the bill, but jets don't and the only reason you believe they do is because you saw it on the TeeVee and because the rest of the herd believes it.

Missiles do not fit the bill. You have never shown one scrap of evidence that they do, and have repeatedly been told why your scenario is physically impossible. Your only objection to its having been a jet is that a bunch of different crash sites look different to you. Fail.

The topic is "how the Shanksville crater was made".

It is not "how do you explain all the implications about how the Shanksville crater was made"

Your version cannot explain how the Shanksville crater was made because it is physically impossible, but quite apart from that it is perfectly reasonable and pertinent to the topic to point out that your version has implictions which make the plot so needlessly complicated, so unlikely to succeed and virtually guaranteed to be discovered that it becomes utterly implausible that anyone would be dunderheaded enough to do it that way.

 

[yankee451]

Maybe if I presented a question as a question rather than a choice you would be more comfortable answering it?

Do you think it's possible an airliner may crash such that its fuselage burrows under soil rendering it invisible, or very nearly so, including its wings?

Thanks

No, and if you're using 710 as an example, considering it lost one wing and part of another in flight, you're not going to have much luck convince me "wings" plural were buried in the muddly ground by the river.

The flight 93 claim is a 757 disappeared into the ground - not just part of it, the whole thing. Anyone who claims such a thing is either lying or a fool.