How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[LSSBB]

Hollywood probably wrote your script.

Your story has it they scored three out of four direct hits using jets as missiles, but you've got a problem when missiles are used as they're designed.

The missiles were designed to make 90 degree turns and create a crater and deliver plane parts and such and erase all trace of themselves????

 

[yankee451]

The missiles were designed to make 90 degree turns and create a crater and deliver plane parts and such and erase all trace of themselves????

The plane parts were not visible from the air. The small white pieces in the woods could well be JASSM parts, as could the debris in the crater. The rest of the jet was buried and had to be unearthed far from the eyes of the media. They only show a couple images of clearly planted debris, but no video and no wide-angle shots for perspective.

You'll have to do better than that. If anyone needs some math, it's you guys.

 

[yankee451]

What would stop the missiles from just skipping off the ground? Or breaking up on contact with the ground and not making your gouges towards the crater? I mean, 10 degrees AOA is pretty shallow for what they were designed to do, which is plow into hardened targets.

So where a hollow aluminum jet will burrow into the ground to where they had to dig 15 feet just to find the tail, a dense metal penetrating warhead will bounce off.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Hollywood probably wrote your script.

Your story has it they scored three out of four direct hits using jets as missiles, but you've got a problem when missiles are used as they're designed.

You're comparing targets which are landmarks hundreds of feet across and visible from miles away with a 'target' at Shanksville which needed to be hit twice on precise trajectories within a foot or two of the intended point, and with one shot having to shoulder its way through a forest on the way in without leaving any trace. Oh, and that's not using the missiles 'as they were designed'.

Who's got some synonyms for 'unconvincing'? I need something more emphatic.

 

[Mudcat]

Can a metal penetrating warhead create a hole in a field of loose dirt? Hmmm.... better hire some experts to find out.

I kinda doubt it. The ground does a damned good job of stoping missiles cold. Flight 93 could very loosely be described as a missile, but for all its mass and speed it could not even penetrate the ground two hundred feet.

The JASSM probably would just break up before completing the furrows, never mind making the crater. From start to finish this 'theory' is frigging insane.

 

[tsig]

Wait... Your argument is "If you guys would just ignore every bit of evidence a jet crashed there, you'll see that a jet couldn't have crashed there!" ?

Close your eyes and you will clearly see the Truth*^TM.

*cue angel choir and trumpets victorious.

 

[tsig]

Plus they have to fake the radar records and silence the controllers who knew it was fake.

Plus they had to get the passengers remains to the site really quickly before investigators turned up. They almost certainly had to fly them there and mince them en route.

Plus they had to bring in tons of mangled 757 parts and dress up the crash site, without leaving tracks of heavy lifting equipment of course.

Plus they had to identify, intercept and silence any real eyewitnesses and substitute fakes.

Oh, and they had to rescue the dud missile from where it got stuck embedded in the split tree.

All in a day's work for the NWO.



Or they could just have crashed a plane.

But think of the money they saved in not having to feed the passengers.

 

[tsig]

So where a hollow aluminum jet will burrow into the ground to where they had to dig 15 feet just to find the tail, a dense metal penetrating warhead will bounce off.

You are aware that the plane compacted when it hit the ground?

 

[phunk]

Hollywood probably wrote your script.

Your story has it they scored three out of four direct hits using jets as missiles, but you've got a problem when missiles are used as they're designed.

Sharpshooter falacy. Calling any of them direct hits implies that they were aiming exactly where they hit. If that's the case, why was there a 20+ floor difference in where the two WTC buildings were hit? How do you know where on the pentagon they were aiming?

 

[332nd]

Yankee, at what angle do you believe your missiles impacted?

 

[jaydeehess]

The authorities have yet to prove anything, but that didn't stop them from invading the world over this tripe.

how many times does it have to be explained that the most solid evidence is that found at the scene,aircraft parts including the cvr/fdr, dna, the radar tracking etc etc etc, all of which indicate that the plane that took off known as flt 93 crashed near Shanksville thus creating a crater. The shape of a crater is affected by so many variables that to suggest that it is a definitive forensics test of what created it is very odd indeed. However the gross characteristics of the crater in question here ALSO fit with the premise that a large aircraft consistent with a 757 hitting at high velocity and steep angle created it. There simply is no need to attempt to go into great detail to 'prove' 757 can do so.
If something quacks like a duck, has webbed feet, paddles about in the water and has a bright green head its a male Mallard and there is no need to do a dna test to confirm that.
Secondly, what math would be suggested that would allow falsification of the premise that a 757 caused this crater?
Lastly , you have no physical evidence at all that indicates a JASSM, let alone three of them, were employed. You have no docuementary evidence either. Your entire premise relies solely on the notion that two JASSM can be made to hit directly along the same track 180 deg opposing each other, and meet at the same point , 10-15 feet underground. Therefore , although the original history has physical and docuementary evidence that truly nullifies a requirement to study crater creating abilities of a 757, your premise does require such study wrt the cratering abilities of twin missiles, since you have nothing else.
So have you any such evidence? So far the answer is 'no' and all you have is your bald contention that it is not only possible but so predictable that a hugely significant plot would be entirely based on a high probability of success of such action.

Furthermore you baldly contend that all physical and docuementary evidence of flt 93's demise is faked by the plotters that carried out your triplet JASSM action. Once again you seem to expect that simply contending this is so should convey some measure of authoritative weight upon the statement itself.

You also ask us if these supposed plotters did so plot would they not attempt cover up and cover story? You are thus making the arguement from ignorance, opining that the lack of anything to support your fantasy is the evidence that its true.

 

[jaydeehess]

Sharpshooter falacy. Calling any of them direct hits implies that they were aiming exactly where they hit. If that's the case, why was there a 20+ floor difference in where the two WTC buildings were hit? How do you know where on the pentagon they were aiming?

of course otoh his contention absolutely relies on almost literal pin point accuracy that he cannot demonstrate is possible let alone highly probable.
In the mainstream history of the 911 impacts, it was of no special consequence to the perpetrators, what point on these enormous targets the planes hit and the impact location of flt 93 was not planned at all and was a matter of chance.

 

[chris lz]

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.

No, I'm not trying to convince you of that. Thanks for your reply.

My next question is, could a 757 crash such that its fuselage but NOT its wings, or not all of its wings, burrows out of sight into soil? And let's assume at least 95% of the fuselage to take care of the objection a few small shreds of it might be seen on top.

Thanks,

Chris

 

[Natan]

The Shanksville crater/scar was already there previously in 1994. My guess is it confused the sensors of one of the air to air missiles fired at Flight 93 thinking it is the shape of a plane. I don't think Flight 93 crashed in that crater the way it was described.

 

[dafydd]

The Shanksville crater/scar was already there previously in 1994. My guess is it confused the sensors of one of the air to air missiles fired at Flight 93 thinking it is the shape of a plane. I don't think Flight 93 crashed in that crater the way it was described.

What you think about it has no bearing on the reality of the plane crash. A scar on the ground confused a missile? Nope.

 

[phunk]

The Shanksville crater/scar was already there previously in 1994. My guess is it confused the sensors of one of the air to air missiles fired at Flight 93 thinking it is the shape of a plane. I don't think Flight 93 crashed in that crater the way it was described.

And here I was, thinking this thread couldn't get any sillier.

 

[chris lz]

Incidentally, a quick position orientation check proves the earlier scar is not that same as the 93 one. 2 different positions = 2 different scars

 

[threadworm]

The whole 'different scar' thing has been regurgitated on Icke's front page apparently.

 

[dafydd]

And here I was, thinking this thread couldn't get any sillier.

There is no limit to the silliness of conspiracy theories. It's an exponential scale. Every missile that has ever been launched would have crashed into any plane shaped feature on the ground. Madness.

 

[dafydd]

The whole 'different scar' thing has been regurgitated on Icke's front page apparently.

That proves that the idea is total lunacy.