How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm curious what it means to you. How low do you think they fly?

It means flying close to the terrain so as to better avoid detection, as described in the video by Susan McElwain, and as described in the numerous documents to which I have linked describing their capabilities.
 
It means flying close to the terrain so as to better avoid detection, as described in the video by Susan McElwain, and as described in the numerous documents to which I have linked describing their capabilities.

Yes, we all know what it means. The question was "how low".
 
JAMMS missile few feet over Susan's car, No JASSM available on 911

It means flying close to the terrain so as to better avoid detection, as described in the video by Susan McElwain, and as described in the numerous documents to which I have linked describing their capabilities.
How did they shoot the missile not in the inventory? lol

Low? lol, Susan said it was few feet above her SUV, under the wires.

This is not low, it is Stupid.

RADAR proves you wrong on 93. The FDR proves you wrong too. Do your kids laugh at you when you rant about missiles you have going the wrong way according your hypersonic Pyrex balls, at 3800 mph, bouncing off the crater? LOL, your missiles would bounce into the next county. You could not make up a dumber fantasy, but you will.
 
Last edited:
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.

Like the way you can substantiate a 500 mph backhoe, right?
 
You just wish you'd thought of it. The ground wasn't chewed up so that leaves out heavy equipment.


I'll buy that.

Plus it would be hard to convince locals it was a jet crash in such a case, so were they all in on it (as you would say)?


Yeah, the whole "locals were in on it" thing sure is ******* crazy isn't it?

So, the simplest explanation which conveniently also happens to be the explanation that ALL available evidence supports is that a jet full of people crashed into a field.

Thank heavens that's sorted, I was beginning to worry about you.
 
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.

This is another lie. No one has claimed the entire aircraft disappeared into the ground
 
I understand the implications are difficult to deal with, but the topic is what caused the crater.

It sure as **** wasn’t a missile(s). Especially considering that the missiles weren’t in production at the time.
 
This is another lie. No one has claimed the entire aircraft disappeared into the ground

Oh you're so quick to split hairs - okay then, the vast majority of a 757, practically none of which was visible above ground from a wide angle shot. The only parts that are shown are in tight photographs where you can't identify the location. 80 percent dug out of the ground after the plane shaped hole re-sealed itself behind the jet.

Specific enough?

The location was eventually determined because of some disturbed ground in front of a grove of charred evergreens, explains Jamie. The ground had swallowed up much of the wreckage." - St. Anthony Messenger Online (09/06

"
the Boeing 757's fuselage disintegrated in a crater that collapsed on itself" - Pittsburg Post Gazette (10/15/01)


Hat-tip to KT.
 
Last edited:
Ahh - so you believe authority by virtue of their authority and all other evidence be damned?

No, I believe in the preponderence of the evidence presented. When YOU have some EVIDENCE to present, anything, anything at all, by all means show it to us. So far you have a contention, bold and bald, mere fiction born soley from the deep recesses of your own imagination.
 
No, I believe in the preponderence of the evidence presented. When YOU have some EVIDENCE to present, anything, anything at all, by all means show it to us. So far you have a contention, bold and bald, mere fiction born soley from the deep recesses of your own imagination.

My contention is supported by far more evidence than your 'preponderence', of which I have yet to see any that I haven't already shot down handily.
 
It sure as **** wasn’t a missile(s). Especially considering that the missiles weren’t in production at the time.

The JASSM was absoltely in small scale production at that time.

Low-rate initial production decision for JASSM is in the year 2000
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jassm.htm


ORLANDO, FL, 26-APR-01 --

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control's Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) successfully demonstrated end-to-end performance by destroying an air defense target in a flight test at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico today. The missile was launched from a U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon flying at Mach 0.80, at an altitude of 2,800 feet above the New Mexico Desert. After weapon release, the missile autonomously navigated and guided to the mission planned target.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ne...pril/LockheedMartinSJASSMDestroysTargetW.html
 
Demonstrate how the wing gash and central crater are more consistent with a jet crash than with two dense metal 12x60 inch penetrating warheads striking in crossfire at glancing oblique trajectories, around 10 degrees from horizontal.

Same claim, same fail.
 
Why bother with 3/4 of million dollar missiles and precise trajectories? Why not just send a guy to the field in the middle of the night and plant much cheaper c4 and det cord? It's be much easier and cheaper than missiles.

I know it's not as sexy of a theory, but it fits the KISS principle.

One guy with a backhoe.

ETA: ninjaed
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom