How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[332nd]

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

That's like saying "just because the ballistics test showed that this was the gun that killed him that doesn't mean he was shot."

 

[chris lz]

So here we have this interesting state of affairs. Yankee states that airliner crash physics do not support fuselage and wings burrowing under soil. Then we have flight 710, whose fuselage did disappear under soil.

So Yankee must explain why crash physics allows a fuselage to do a disappearing act, but not also wings.

Is there something I'm missing here?

 

[yankee451]

That's like saying "just because the ballistics test showed that this was the gun that killed him that doesn't mean he was shot."

Hypothetical question,

If it was proved the jets were fraudulent, what would you think of the information regarding the FDR, DNA, etc. in that case? If it was proved a jet couldn't possibly have caused the crater, would the rest of the evidence still be considered evidence of a crash, or in the event there was no plane, would it be considered evidence of fraud?

 

[yankee451]

So here we have this interesting state of affairs. Yankee states that airliner crash physics do not support fuselage and wings burrowing under soil. Then we have flight 710, whose fuselage did disappear under soil.

So Yankee must explain why crash physics allows a fuselage to do a disappearing act, but not also wings.

Is there something I'm missing here?

I see someone desperate to hang me by my words.

Can you show me a picture of the resealed crater in the wet muddy ground where flight 710 crashed please? From the movie they made (yes, they made a movie about that crash site, but flight 93 had a dozen crappy photographs), they described a big crater where the fuselage struck. It was near a river and the ground was sloppy with wet snow to boot. The fuselage blew a hole and was at the bottom of it.

NOTHING LIKE 93 where a whole 757 disappeared into hard, dry rocky soil just baked in the summer sun, bored ALL THE WAY IN, and then sealed itself behind it.

 

[beachnut]

Tons of parts ejected from 93's crater, clearly visible to people who can See

I see someone desperate to hang me by my words.

Can you show me a picture of the resealed crater in the wet muddy ground where flight 710 crashed please? From the movie they made (yes, they made a movie about that crash site, but flight 93 had a dozen crappy photographs), they described a big crater from where the fuselage struck. It was near a river and the ground was sloppy with wet snow to boot. The fuselage blew a hole and was at the bottom of it.

NOTHING LIKE 93 where a whole 757 disappeared into hard, dry rocky soil just baked in the summer sun, bored ALL THE WAY IN, and then sealed itself behind it.

Why do you lie?

... NOTHING LIKE 93 where a whole 757 disappeared into hard, dry rocky soil just baked in the summer sun, bored ALL THE WAY IN, and then sealed itself behind it.

Thought you were an expert on ballistics; why do you lie.
Here is the crash site south of the crater, with thousands of aircraft parts not disappeared into the hard ground.


93 was not buried. Some Parts were buried. In high speed impacts, parts are buried, parts are ejected.

You claim to be an expert on ballistics; have you failed to shot the ground next to you, and have concrete blow back into your leg, shrapnel all over, and some buried in the crater you just made? NO? YES?

If you can't comprehend 93's impact and parts being ejected; You lied about being a ballistic expert and you have no viable knowledge to make any comment on 93. It is that simple.

Wake up. Talk to your dad before it is too late.
Who said we should kill UBL because he inspired 19 nuts? (me) War? Who needs it? But spreading fantasy about 19 murderers is nonsense, anti-intellectual claptrap; and you are pushing fantasy over reality.

You are not helping the anti-war movement by spreading fantasy. You are doing the opposite, making the anti-war movement look nuts.

 

[chris lz]

I see someone desperate to hang me by my words.

I'm not trying to do anything unfair here. just trying to make sure I'm not misrepresenting your view of physics. There's a film about 710 recently posted on Youtube made in 1960. Maybe that's the one you've seen.

Picture:

http://cmsimg.indystar.com/apps/pbc...Border=0&RetroIndy-Tell-City-plane-crash-1960

It's hard to find many good pictures, but here's a quotation from Rod Serling's book (I think I gave it earlier)

"The airliner's fuselage emerged from the black cloud minus its entire right wing and with only a large stub of the left wing still attached. ....

It struck a soybean field at 618 miles an hour. Mud, dirt, grass, shrubs and mottled snow were tossed two hundred and fifty feet in the air. The debris fell back around a muddy crater forty feet wide. From this gaping wound in the earth poured smouldering smoke. There were pieces of wreckage around the perfectly formed rim. Some other metal fragments were hurled 1500 ft away but the one-hundred-foot fuselage itself had disappeared.

In the crater, buried twelve feet under this smoking devil's caldron, was what was left of Northwest Airlines Flight 710 and the 33 men, 21 woman and 8 children and 1 infant aboard.

...

But the residue from Flight 710 was something even the most veteran investigtors had never come across before. There were no bodies.

Newsmen arriving on the scene quickly noticed that the shirts, towels, women's slips, and other items of clothng were hanging from nearby trees. Quite naturally they phoned in the gory news that the clothes had been stripped from the victims' bodies by the explosive impact. Their observation was accurate but their analysis faulty. The items draped on the tree branches were from a bale of old clothing that Northwest was shipping to its maintenance shop in Miami for grease rags. When impact burst open the baggage compartment, the assorted clothing was flung into the air and fluttered down among the trees.

Where were the victims? Masked workers wearing plastic gloves dug into the smoking crater. They dug down a full twelve feet before they found what they were seeking. The huge fuselage had telescoped and compressed into a mass of molten metal only one third its original length. Of the sixty-three occupants, there was not enough left to identify - eventually - more than seven bodies. The aluminum fuselage that was their coffin was so hot that five days later a steam shovel picked up pieces that still were burning."

From The Electra Story
Aviation's Greatest Mystery
By Robert Sterling - 1963

(originally posted by Arthur/Adoucette at airdisaster.com)

You can check the final report here. http://www.dmairfield.com/people/laparle_ee/1960.03.17_NorthwestAirlines_LockheedElectra_Opt.pdf

 

[yankee451]

I'm not trying to do anything unfair here. just trying to make sure I'm not misrepresenting your view of physics. There's a film about 710 recently posted on Youtube made in 1960. Maybe that's the one you've seen.

Picture:

http://cmsimg.indystar.com/apps/pbc...Border=0&RetroIndy-Tell-City-plane-crash-1960

It's hard to find many good pictures, but here's a quotation from Rod Serling's book (I think I gave it earlier)

"The airliner's fuselage emerged from the black cloud minus its entire right wing and with only a large stub of the left wing still attached. ....

It struck a soybean field at 618 miles an hour. Mud, dirt, grass, shrubs and mottled snow were tossed two hundred and fifty feet in the air. The debris fell back around a muddy crater forty feet wide. From this gaping wound in the earth poured smouldering smoke. There were pieces of wreckage around the perfectly formed rim. Some other metal fragments were hurled 1500 ft away but the one-hundred-foot fuselage itself had disappeared.

In the crater, buried twelve feet under this smoking devil's caldron, was what was left of Northwest Airlines Flight 710 and the 33 men, 21 woman and 8 children and 1 infant aboard.

...

But the residue from Flight 710 was something even the most veteran investigtors had never come across before. There were no bodies.

Newsmen arriving on the scene quickly noticed that the shirts, towels, women's slips, and other items of clothng were hanging from nearby trees. Quite naturally they phoned in the gory news that the clothes had been stripped from the victims' bodies by the explosive impact. Their observation was accurate but their analysis faulty. The items draped on the tree branches were from a bale of old clothing that Northwest was shipping to its maintenance shop in Miami for grease rags. When impact burst open the baggage compartment, the assorted clothing was flung into the air and fluttered down among the trees.

Where were the victims? Masked workers wearing plastic gloves dug into the smoking crater. They dug down a full twelve feet before they found what they were seeking. The huge fuselage had telescoped and compressed into a mass of molten metal only one third its original length. Of the sixty-three occupants, there was not enough left to identify - eventually - more than seven bodies. The aluminum fuselage that was their coffin was so hot that five days later a steam shovel picked up pieces that still were burning."

From The Electra Story
Aviation's Greatest Mystery
By Robert Sterling - 1963

(originally posted by Arthur/Adoucette at airdisaster.com)


You can check the final report here. http://www.dmairfield.com/people/laparle_ee/1960.03.17_NorthwestAirlines_LockheedElectra_Opt.pdf

I have read it. What is your point? That if a faster traveling fuselage with only half a wing can disappear into the muddy wet ground, then a slower moving full 757 can disappear into the rocky, dry ground?

You don't think you're splitting hairs here?

 

[Travis]

Going by your physics at what speed will a jetliner not be able to bury itself in the ground?

And, by extension, what should the crater of 93 have looked like? Simply saying it doesn't look right is not a real answer.

 

[yankee451]

Going by your physics at what speed will a jetliner not be able to bury itself in the ground?

And, by extension, what should the crater of 93 have looked like? Simply saying it doesn't look right is not a real answer.

I would have expected it to look like a jet crash, with a crater depending on the impact angle, speed and type of soil, and scattered pieces visible for a wide area all around the crater. Nothing like Shanksville.

Because missile impact craters are classified, I used NASA's oblique meteorite impact crater photos to gauge the trajectory based on the shape of the gash. Haven't you watched the video?

Based on those images I concluded the Shanksville crater could better be caused by two missiles striking in crossfire.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

I used NASA's oblique meteorite impact crater photos to gauge the trajectory based on the shape of the gash. Haven't you watched the video?

Based on those images I concluded the Shanksville crater could better be caused by two missiles striking in crossfire.

See page 1, post #12

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Something struck this tree from the other side, snapping it down the middle
[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/split-tree.png[/qimg]

You keep saying that, but do you have anything more than this photo? How did you establish that the tree was struck from the other side? How did you establish that it was split by being struck and not, for example, by the heat of the fire?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Because missile impact craters are classified, I used NASA's oblique meteorite impact crater photos to gauge the trajectory based on the shape of the gash.

It's been repeatedly pointed out why that evidence is worthless in support of your claim. The NASA picture shows a gash leading away from a crater, not leading towards it. So it shows the opposite of what you seek to prove.

Evidence rejected.

 

[LSSBB]

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.

I am not assuming a plane crashed. All the physical evidence points to it. None of the physical evidence points to anything else. No dragon claws, UFO parts, bigfoot droppings, chupacabra drool, and no missile evidence.

 

[phunk]

You keep saying that, but do you have anything more than this photo? How did you establish that the tree was struck from the other side? How did you establish that it was split by being struck and not, for example, by the heat of the fire?

The fact that it appears unburnt in the middle is pretty good evidence that it split AFTER the fire was out, and therefore not by any hypothetical missile that started the fire. I'd guess that it was split when the top half of the burnt tree snapped off.

 

[NoahFence]

Hypothetical question,

If it was proved the jets were fraudulent, what would you think of the information regarding the FDR, DNA, etc. in that case? If it was proved a jet couldn't possibly have caused the crater, would the rest of the evidence still be considered evidence of a crash, or in the event there was no plane, would it be considered evidence of fraud?

well we don't need to worry about that do we? we live in reality land, where a 5 year old girl could figure out what happened there.

 

[chris lz]

I have read it. What is your point? That if a faster traveling fuselage with only half a wing can disappear into the muddy wet ground, then a slower moving full 757 can disappear into the rocky, dry ground?

You don't think you're splitting hairs here?

The point is simple.

You agreed earlier that an airliner may not crash such that its wings and fuselage burrow out of site. If I'm wrong, correct me please.

You seem to be agreeing also that at the very least, an airliner may crash such that AT LEAST its fuselage may borrow itself out of sight (e.g. F710).

SO, if a fuselage can do this IN THEORY, then why can't WINGS also do this IN THEORY?

Explain

 

[jaydeehess]

So if I wanted to fake a plane crash, I could dig hole and drop some aluminum foil in it, and all it would take to convince you it was a jet would be an FDR and a little radar?

Dang, you're a pushover. Is that what all that book-larnin' does? Makes one docile and trusting of authority? Perhaps just a wee bit incurious?

Oddly enough there are people who's job it is to investigate aircraft crashs. These people DID go over the site in question and had NO doubts that it was an aircraft impact. Theirs is not book-larnin', its actual years of experience on this specific job.


You do NOT have any such experience, nor do you have any evidence for your own rather imaginative scenario of two missiles intersecting at 180 degrees opposite heading at a point 10-15 feet underground.

otoh, I have been at the scence of a passenger jet crash. Plane took off without proper deicing and crashed a mile past the runway into trees. The trees near where it came to rest were burned but the trees it took down on the way there were not burned.

Why did the trees snapped off by your passing missile catch fire? How did a missile hitting 40 foot tall trees manage to stay on track to meet the other missile dead on and 10-15 feet underground?

 

[jaydeehess]

Hypothetical question,

If it was proved the jets were fraudulent, what would you think of the information regarding the FDR, DNA, etc. in that case? If it was proved a jet couldn't possibly have caused the crater, would the rest of the evidence still be considered evidence of a crash, or in the event there was no plane, would it be considered evidence of fraud?

That would seem to be one of your main arguements, and yet instead of working towards doing any of that you choose to tell us to prove a jet can make the crater seen.
Same goes for your hypothetical missiles, rather than work towards proving that your scenario is anything more than pure imagination on your part, you choose instead to simply assert it is not only possible but probable.


,,,,,,, and still we wait.

 

[Mark F]

I would have expected it to look like a jet crash, with a crater depending on the impact angle, speed and type of soil, and scattered pieces visible for a wide area all around the crater. Nothing like Shanksville.

Because missile impact craters are classified, I used NASA's oblique meteorite impact crater photos to gauge the trajectory based on the shape of the gash. Haven't you watched the video?

Based on those images I concluded the Shanksville crater could better be caused by two missiles striking in crossfire.

Except that what you think it should look like has nothing to do with anything.

Except that JASSM wasn't in service and was performing badly in development, has a steep dive terminal attack profile fitting its hard target penetrator warhead and you have no evidence whatsoever any missile of any kind can do what you describe. Not can you tell us where the missiles were launched from, how they avoided the terrain and trees to impact so perfectly, what happened to Flight 93 and its passsengers and crew, why 90% of Flight 93's wreckage including engines and flight recorders and the crew passenger DNA were recovered at Shanksville, etc, etc, etc,,,

What you have done is formed a conclusion based on looking at just one tiny aspect of the whole picture - the crater - and deliberately ignored everything else. Since you have shown no proclivity to accept your failure at proving your own point, let alone disproving the "official story" after 37 pages why is this discussion still going on?

If you are right, go set KSM and ZM free. If you are not, stick a fork in it. I honestly have no idea what you think you are doing here or what you think you are going to accomplish.

 

[jaydeehess]

Except that what you think it should look like has nothing to do with anything.

Except that JASSM wasn't in service and was performing badly in development, has a steep dive terminal attack profile fitting its hard target penetrator warhead and you have no evidence whatsoever any missile of any kind can do what you describe. Not can you tell us where the missiles were launched from, how they avoided the terrain and trees to impact so perfectly, what happened to Flight 93 and its passsengers and crew, why 90% of Flight 93's wreckage including engines and flight recorders and the crew passenger DNA were recovered at Shanksville, etc, etc, etc,,,

What you have done is formed a conclusion based on looking at just one tiny aspect of the whole picture - the crater - and deliberately ignored everything else. Since you have shown no proclivity to accept your failure at proving your own point, let alone disproving the "official story" after 37 pages why is this discussion still going on?

If you are right, go set KSM and ZM free. If you are not, stick a fork in it. I honestly have no idea what you think you are doing here or what you think you are going to accomplish.

^^^this^^^