How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[jaydeehess]

If you could prove me wrong, you'd probably try.

you have yet to refute, with anything other than bald assertion, the evidence both physical and docuementary, that flt 93 crashed there.
You might have some small bit of credibility if you could at the very least demonstrate that in 2001 it was possible to have two JASSM converge at 180 deg and 10 deg down slope at a point 10-15 feet below ground.

So far, nada.

You are making the extrodinary claim with no physical or docuementary evidence, which makes you responsible to bolster your claim with extrodinary evidence.

So far, nada.

Instead we have your unsubstantiated contention which you assert it is up to others to disprove.

You might as well claim evil pixies created the crater and demand others disprove it.

 

[fess]

Your question is irrelevant but yes, I grew up in the Alaska bush and have even taken unofficial flight lessons, as did most kids who had friends with bush planes.

Did your bush plane have hollow wings?

My ballistics experience is limited to being raised with guns and selling fireworks for many years, during which time I experimented with model rocketry and explosives, both legal and illegal. I could recreate a smaller version of the Shanksville crater with couple bottle rockets. Anyone who has ever fired a gun at the ground at a glancing angle would recognize that gash, and even this description is better than a jet crash.

In my circle of gun owners and marksmen, any one who fired a “gun” into the ground at a 10deg angle would be called an *****.

 

[yankee451]

Wow, you are focusing on the crater; wow, ignore the DNA, ignore the FDR, CVR, FAA tapes, RADAR tape, ignore physics, and reality. good one

Why do you lie and spread fantasy? How could you steal this idea, it so stupid all of the crazy 911 truth sites ban your nonsense. It is bad when nuts on 911 ban your idiotic fantasy. Irony.

It is so silly and stupid, it is all wrong. Everything you have made up is wrong.

Why are you wrong.

Kristin Gould White, found in the crater, murdered by the terrorists you apologize for by making up an insane fantasy of missiles.

Here is what she said about your problems on physics and reality in general?

You don't care if you lie about 911. In fact, you are so far into fantasy role playing claptrap, you have no clue that spreading fantasy of missiles is a lie. As you call evidence, a wall of text, explaining you don't do book learning, you don't do a wall of text.

All you will do now is project your foaming in the mouth routine, and spew more malarkey about your failed insane fantasy.

http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93gouldwhitebiop8.asp

Kristin Gould White, murder on 911; DNA found at Flight 93 Crash Site.
You are debunked again.



Yankee451, are you going to inform her family she did not die in your fantasy? Have told your brother and sister she is not dead? Mom and dad? Grandkids? What does the wife think of your fantasy?

Well are you Yankee451?

Said like Clint Eastwood.

 

[Animal]

That's my problem, isn't it?

I.E. you make things up and cannot be bothered to explain when your woo is proven to be impossible.

What a proud graduate of Google u.

 

[LSSBB]

Tell me how the jet made the hole.

It crashed into the ground.


Sheesh.

 

[LSSBB]

The ground was backfilled with crushed rock and dirt in 1990, meaning it had been settling for more than a decade. We have closeup images of the soil so we can see with our own eyes. The reason you guys don't try to calculate how a jet, wings, tail and all could burrow into the ground is because you know you can't prove a lie.

The problem for you and the rest of the plane huggers is the fact that your credentials won't save you. If you could prove your case, you would have done so by now. Heck, there are architects on this board, what's stopping you from using a blizzard of calculations and a 3D model? Isn't that what you fellas DO?

I don't need to worry about calculating the mass of a jet's construction nor the distribution of it's mass, nor do I need to prove how the jet burrowed into the ground, wings and all, with the "loose", "soft" soil covering the hole behind it, that's your story. My job is easy.

We already know the JASSM's 240 lbs of exlosives would make a hole roughly the size of the center crater, so all I need to do now is prove a 900 lb, 12x60 inch cylinder will make the same gash at "such and such" trajectory, at "such and such" speed.

Of course, considering all the swinging creds around here, you could make the models right now.

Why should I bother to model it? There is Radar tracking it all the way from where it lifted off, which matches the FDR, the parts of United 93 and DNA of passengers and hijackers were found at the site, and a giant hole the shape of the plane. No parts of anything other than the plane and passengers - no missile parts, no super seekrit Mossad Ninja headbands, nothing.

 

[phunk]

Speaking of trees, what blew off the tops of these trees if the rest of the jet disappeared into the ground? Missile detonated in the air, or shrapnel from the cockpit?

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Topped-Trees.png[/qimg]

The engineer is working on verifying the trajectory and crater size, once we're sure it's a match, we can deal with the trees. I'm not sure the trees would be an issue once the missile was it was at terminal velocity, but we'll wait to cross that bridge when we come to it.

Blew the tops off? How about burned the tops off, it's this new invention called fire. Tends to happen in plane crashes.

 

[beachnut]

What blew off tree tops? Fire. Fantasy dies again, goes Zombie, Zombie, Zombie

Speaking of trees, what blew off the tops of these trees if the rest of the jet disappeared into the ground? Missile detonated in the air, or shrapnel from the cockpit?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Topped-Trees.png

The engineer is working on verifying the trajectory and crater size, once we're sure it's a match, we can deal with the trees. I'm not sure the trees would be an issue once the missile was it was at terminal velocity, but we'll wait to cross that bridge when we come to it.

What blew off the top of the trees?

It is called fire. Fire. The jet fuel on Flight 93, burned the trees. Burning, burning is chemistry, book learnin. Got Chemistry?

What was the heading of Flight 93 at impact? Please study Flight 93, real people murdered by terrorists. Reality hits fantasy.

beat by phunk, with style

 

[yankee451]

Why should I bother to model it? There is Radar tracking it all the way from where it lifted off, which matches the FDR, the parts of United 93 and DNA of passengers and hijackers were found at the site, and a giant hole the shape of the plane. No parts of anything other than the plane and passengers - no missile parts, no super seekrit Mossad Ninja headbands, nothing.

Because if it can be proven the gash was probably caused by missiles, and proven it couldn't have been caused by a plane, then the rest of your "clues" are probably just backstories to support the lie.

Don't all criminal investigations begin at the scene of the crime? Aren't you getting ahead of yourself assuming the jet did indeed crash? Shouldn't the murder weapon be identified first? It would get rid of a lot of unnecessary research if it could be eliminated from the list.

 

[yankee451]

Blew the tops off? How about burned the tops off, it's this new invention called fire. Tends to happen in plane crashes.

Something struck this tree from the other side, snapping it down the middle, and those firemen look like they just arrived. Who put out the fire caused by the big fireball from the invisible jet?:

 

[Dog Town]

Shouldn't the murder weapon be identified first?

It has, extensively! Only a REALLY poor investigator*, would not see that.



*See my sig.

 

[332nd]

You mean like the four examples of newspaper articles describing how the plane disappeared into the ground?

Newspaper articles are just starting points because reporters rarely get more technical than their readers can understand.

Perhaps you'd like to review some more technical reports?

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=478665
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/UAL93FDR.pdf

 

[yankee451]

Newspaper articles are just starting points because reporters rarely get more technical than their readers can understand.

Perhaps you'd like to review some more technical reports?

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=478665
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/UAL93FDR.pdf

Seen em. The damage is consistent with missiles, not a jet crash.

 

[chris lz]

Yankee,

Still wondering if you'd care to answer my 2nd question: Can an airliner fuselage bury itself without wings?

 

[yankee451]

Yankee,

Still wondering if you'd care to answer my 2nd question: Can an airliner fuselage bury itself without wings?

I have answered already. If you're referring to flight 710 from what i understand it blew a big crater with the remaining fuselage found crumpled at the bottom. I didn't see where it had covered itself back up; it was not a full jet, and it was going faster than 93 when it hit and the ground was muddy and wet.

93 was a whole plane all the way to the vertical stabilizer, and the ground was hard and rocky.

 

[332nd]

Seen em. The damage is consistent with missiles, not a jet crash.

Yeah that's what I figured.

So why should anyone bother to show you the math since you've not only shown you wouldn't understand it, but you would just hand wave it away in any case?

You keep saying the crash isn't consistent with a jet crash based on nothing but googling pictures of other crashes where you then ignore factors like the others were trying not to crash & the terrain that they crashed into.

You insist that it had to be missiles while ignoring that for a missile to come in at the angle you claim it would have to take out a fair amount of the trees on one side to make a furrow into the main crater. Also you claim that there was a third missile that no one noticed.

 

[chris lz]

I have answered already. If you're referring to flight 710 from what i understand it blew a big crater with the remaining fuselage found crumpled at the bottom. I didn't see where it had covered itself back up; it was not a full jet, and it was going faster than 93 when it hit and the ground was muddy and wet.

93 was a whole plane all the way to the vertical stabilizer, and the ground was hard and rocky.

OK, let's go with Northwest flight 710. In this crash, virtually the entire fuselage was found underneath the soil. "Rescuers found nothing at the site of impact larger than a spoon."

So what you seem to be saying is, a fuselage may pull a disappearing act, but not if the wings are attached. Help me to understand how this can be.

 

[yankee451]

OK, let's go with Northwest flight 710. In this crash, virtually the entire fuselage was found underneath the soil. "Rescuers found nothing at the site of impact larger than a spoon."

So what you seem to be saying is, a fuselage may pull a disappearing act, but not if the wings are attached. Help me to understand how this can be.

No.

 

[yankee451]

Yeah that's what I figured.

So why should anyone bother to show you the math since you've not only shown you wouldn't understand it, but you would just hand wave it away in any case?

You keep saying the crash isn't consistent with a jet crash based on nothing but googling pictures of other crashes where you then ignore factors like the others were trying not to crash & the terrain that they crashed into.

You insist that it had to be missiles while ignoring that for a missile to come in at the angle you claim it would have to take out a fair amount of the trees on one side to make a furrow into the main crater. Also you claim that there was a third missile that no one noticed.

The flight paths don't have much to do with whether a 757 is responsible for the gash.

 

[chris lz]

No.

OK, let's try this again.

Do you accept that in the crash of Northwest Flight 710, virtually its entire fuselage burrowed out of sight?