How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[sts60]

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

Well, he's referring the barely-there lunar atmosophere (about 10 tons total) - which for many purposes can be considered a vacuum - and its characterization by Apollo-deployed instruments on the Moon. That would indeed indicate he thinks Apollo happened; although the quote you mentioned seems to contradict that, I'm interested in what he has to say here on this forum.

Anyway, yankee451, I'm still interested in your idea of what kind of atmosphere the Moon has, but don't intend to pursue the matter further in this subforum. However, if you would like to discuss Apollo hoax claims, there's a dedicated thread on the main "conspiracies" subforum, and I'll be happy to discuss it there if you like.

 

[yankee451]

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

And yet earth's atmosphere isn't as tenuous. Do you need me to draw you a picture? They haven't seemed to help much so far.

 

[yankee451]

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

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






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

Once one faces facts about the lies of 9/11, the obvious question becomes 'what else did they lie about'.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Well, he's referring the barely-there lunar atmosophere (about 10 tons total) - which for many purposes can be considered a vacuum - and its characterization by Apollo-deployed instruments on the Moon. That would indeed indicate he thinks Apollo happened; although the quote you mentioned seems to contradict that, I'm interested in what he has to say here on this forum.

I doubt we'll get much out of him on the subject here so, at the risk of over-egging the derail pudding, here's more from another forum:

http://shtf411.com/top-level-quot-t...-off-or-quot-stroked-quot-t20845.html#p160456

Whether the mirrors are real or not, men never traveled through space to deposit them there.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Once one faces facts about the lies of 9/11, the obvious question becomes 'what else did they lie about'.

Who are "they"?

 

[sts60]

Once one faces facts about the lies of 9/11, the obvious question becomes 'what else did they lie about'.

Is that a reference to Apollo? Because your reference to the lunar atmosphere is based on data from Apollo, including instruments hand-placed by Apollo astronauts.

 

[yankee451]

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.

I doubt the first person to know this was l'il ol' me. I'm sure the critical thinkers, leaders and scientists of the world have known since day one. It's thanks to the work of sites like this crawling with people who demand conformity of thought we have to thank, among other media outlets. It is a testament to the work of Edward Bernays:

In Propaganda (1928), Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

Bernays was the double nephew of Sigmund Freud - so yeah, these guys know what they're doing and to think that because you have a state education, it somehow makes you better-qualified to question the authority that trained you in the first place, is laughable.

Listen to this interview below and pay attention at around the 32 and 38 minute marks where this young, independent journalist describes the integration of the allegedly disparate and competing news agencies covering a war zone. The whole interview is compelling because of his description of the atrocities in Libya, but pay close attention to his observations about the media being integrated with the military:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKx7kbvkJA

 

[dafydd]

Once one faces facts about the lies of 9/11, the obvious question becomes 'what else did they lie about'.

Some aspects of the American educational system, obviously.

 

[dafydd]

I doubt the first person to know this was l'il ol' me. I'm sure the critical thinkers, leaders and scientists of the world have known since day one. ]

No.

 

[Oystein]

...
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.

cj, those dialogues toward the end of the flight, for example around 1:16:40 "Is that it? Shall we finish it off?" - "No, not yet..." - where are those from? CVR?

 

[beachnut]

I doubt the first person to know this was l'il ol' me. I'm sure the critical thinkers, leaders and scientists of the world have known since day one. It's thanks to the work of sites like this crawling with people who demand conformity of thought we have to thank, ...

You post fantasy so stupid, you can't even use a logical missile. You google up a missile not in the inventory till after 911, to do your stupid claim of crossfire doo-doo.

And then you SPAM BS, off topic nonsense which has nothing to do with your insane claims.

Your insane claim ignores the murder of all on board Flight 93 by failed terrorists unable to fight unarmed passengers who figure out 911 in minutes.

Here you are SPAMMING a skeptic forum with nonsense, unable to defend your delusional theory of 911. You deny the murder, and ignore tons of debris next to the crater in Shanksville.

Stop posting off topic junk.

This sub-forum is where you post crazy claims about 911. Your claim is crazy and supported by lies, and failed google.

You post fantasy claims, then you post off-topic stuff to explain why you post lies? Why do you post nonsense? Do you know your own topic? You are suppose to post evidence.

Sadly, there is no evidence to support your 10 degree bouncing missile theory. You have the missiles coming in the wrong direction.

Empirical data proves your theory is BS.

.... The denser atmosphere the heavier gravity would make one think it would be more likely not to skip like a rock on a pond than the lunar projectiles which made gashes very similar to Shanksville.

Is that why I can't skip rocks on earth? lol, you are the physics expert 911 truth needs.

Do you think before you debunk your debunking? (but rocks do skip on ponds) lol


Yes, I have seen people like you in first grade. They insist 1 plus 1 is Orange, and play the conformity card when I say 2. You are making excuses for your inability to do physics and understand 911.
This is an event, not an opinion. 911 is not an opinion you can change. The impact crater is exactly that of Flight 93 as proved by RADAR, DNA, and tons of debris, and FDR. Your theory is BS, and you can't get it past fantasy.

 

[Oystein]

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.

No, you are not. You are lying about this. See: I wrote earlier:

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?



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.


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!

I list several independent bodies of evidence about UA93 in that post. You did reply to that post, but you deleted all the evidence, and only addressed the non-evidence (and that with a lie, too):

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.

See?

You are NOT addressing all the evidence.

You are NOT addressing the radar evidence. You know that radar records track UA93 all the way to a field near Shanksville?
You are NOT addressing the FDR data evidence. You know that the FDR was recovered and decoded, and its data works out to a pilot-induced crash in a field near Shanksville?
You are NOT addressing the evidence of debris and human remains found in and around the crater in a field near Shanksville.
You are NOT addressing the DNA data won from human remains found in and around the crater in a field near Shanksville.
You are NOT addressing the evidence established by eye witnesses who saw a plane, plane parts, human remains.

And of course "claims that UA93 had a <10° impact angle." are NOT all the rage. We are all aware that UA93 impacted at a much steeper angle.
No one claims a <10° impact angle for UA93. The NTSB doesn't. The 9/11 Commission Report doesn't. The FBI doesn't.


Why do you lie?
Everybody here can see that you lie!

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Speaking of red herrings, how about kicking to death a flip respone to a stupid question, that aught to derail the conversation for a while.

It was relevant to the statement that at a ten degree trajectory the missiles would bounce off the ground like a rock across a pond. The point you seem incapable of grasping is that the images of the oblique meteorite craters on the moon (in the video, remember?) indicate that at less than ten degrees lunar projectiles don't necessarily skip like a rock on a pond as the previous poster stated, even though there is thinner atmosphere and less gravitational pull. The denser atmosphere the heavier gravity would make one think it would be more likely not to skip like a rock on a pond than the lunar projectiles which made gashes very similar to Shanksville.

What missiles?

 

[Mudcat]

What missiles?

There are no missiles. Only when you realize this it is their brain refusing to accept reality.

...Okay, badly butchered The Matrix there, but you no doubt get the point.

So far I see no evidence that Yankee has any evidence for missiles.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

As stated in the video no one has bothered to watch before commenting,

"But we're not on the moon, at least some of us, anyway".

So is there any intelligent life in this forum who can address the evidence at hand? I have tried to respond to what few questions I can find amongst all the drivel so maybe you should pick a representative for each thread and organize your thoughts.

What evidence?

 

[Oystein]

Once one faces facts about the my lies of 9/11, the obvious question becomes 'what else did they I lie about'.

I fixed that for you

 

[Oystein]

...
It was relevant to the statement that at a ten degree trajectory the missiles would bounce off the ground like a rock across a pond. The point you seem incapable of grasping is that the images of the oblique meteorite craters on the moon (in the video, remember?) indicate that at less than ten degrees lunar projectiles don't necessarily skip like a rock on a pond as the previous poster stated, even though there is thinner atmosphere and less gravitational pull. The denser atmosphere the heavier gravity would make one think it would be more likely not to skip like a rock on a pond than the lunar projectiles which made gashes very similar to Shanksville.
...

What do gravity and air density have to do with whether or not a rock would bounce off the ground?

 

[Mudcat]

What do gravity and air density have to do with whether or not a rock would bounce off the ground?

If I understand Newtonian physics right, and its entirely possible I don't, nothing.

 

[sts60]

...lunar projectiles don't necessarily skip like a rock on a pond as the previous poster stated, even though there is thinner atmosphere and less gravitational pull....

yankee451, based on this I'll assume that you agree the Moon's atmosphere is extremely tenuous, for most practical purposes a vacuum, and consider the question closed unless you have additional comments.

Your reference in post 153 discusses this. I have to admit I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling your citation of government-supplied data to remarks such as:

Once one faces facts about the lies of 9/11, the obvious question becomes 'what else did they lie about'.

From the context, you appear to be talking about Apollo, but ultimately you are using Apollo data. I'm sure you can see the apparent contradiction, and if you'd like to clarify, I'd appreciate it. And again, if you'd like to go into Apollo hoax claims in detail, there's always the general Apollo thread in the main Conspiracies forum.

 

[yankee451]

Okay, so back on topic. So far the true believers cannot explain why the crash site looks nothing like other crash sites. even with faster impacts.

The measurements of the crater are known, but they make no attempt to support their claims by explaining how the gash is consistent with a jet's measurements, even if they could explain the absense of debris seen outside of the crater. The official statements claim the deeper they went into the crater, the more of the jet they pulled out, which combined with the absense of jetsam around the crater would indicate the jet burrowed into the ground, so the gash measurements should match.

However the crater IS consistent with two projectiles crashing in crossfire at trajectories of less than ten degrees, so until the class can move past explaining how the physical evidence fits their theories, I guess I win by default.