How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[332nd]

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?

How would it be "proven"?

 

[EvilBiker]

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.

If, probably, probably - such indecisiveness, considering the thread topic is "How the Shanksville Crater Was Made"

Crater in ground, airplane parts, body parts - I think they got the scene of the crime right. Stop trying to surreptitiously drop that missile onto the scene, we're watching you.

 

[yankee451]

How would it be "proven"?

It was a hypothetical question. Take a chance; answer the question.

 

[yankee451]

If, probably, probably - such indecisiveness, considering the thread topic is "How the Shanksville Crater Was Made"

Crater in ground, airplane parts, body parts - I think they got the scene of the crime right. Stop trying to surreptitiously drop that missile onto the scene, we're watching you.

Until I prove what caused the gash, why would I use more decisive terms? Until you prove something, why do you?

Instead of watching me, you might want to study the evidence.

 

[yankee451]

^^^this^^^

Insisting the missiles didn't exist doesn't make it so.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

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.

I don't care what my background is. Had I stolen this idea from someone else, I am still only the messenger. If my hypothesis is incorrect, tell me where.

If it's the trees that you have a problem with, you might want to research the capabilities of the missiles first. I'm not sure the trees would be a problem on it's terminal dive, but I really don't know. So far I'm only focusing on the crater.

Sadly, no, your flying experience is not irrelevant to my question. Your claimed experience in flying things should have led you to invent a scenario that did not depend upon aerodynamically impossible high-speed maneuvers (right turns, tree-dodging, pin-point accuracy...)

You apparently have access to information about the JASSM--what is its turn radius, at speed? (...do remember that airspace is three-dimensional...)

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

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^^^

Insisting the missiles didn't exist doesn't make it so.

Who's insisting?

 

[Slowvehicle]

But, but BUT...sputter!

The topic is "How the Shanksville Crater Was Made", not "Why I Need to Believe A Jet Did It".

Tell me how the jet made the hole.

High speed, nose down, inverted impact in loamy soil.

Attested to by multiple evidence.

 

[threadworm]

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?

uh-huh

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB076i023p05750/abstract

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...a=X&ei=KMgbUe2nCamH0AXDjYHgBw&ved=0CGUQ6AEwCA

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Missile-applications-research-Contributions-astrogeology/dp/B0006CN1X0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEN6l4OVPnQ

 

[332nd]

It was a hypothetical question. Take a chance; answer the question.

Take a chance & clarify the question. How would it be "proven"?

 

[DGM]

Take a chance & clarify the question. How would it be "proven"?

He wants you to "open your mind" and enter the fantasy world he lives in so he can show you how is "theory" is possible. Forget everything and focus on the one detail vague enough to support his claim.

You "Big Picture" guys just don't get it.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

I've been searching the thread for some real evidence from yankee451, but with no success. Is his evidence hidden behind a full stop in one of his posts?

That full stop could be a microdot containing schematics and flightpaths and whatnot. He's sitting on very important information here, it makes sense to put some security measures in place

He wants you to "open your mind" and enter the fantasy world he lives in so he can show you how is "theory" is possible. Forget everything and focus on the one detail vague enough to support his claim.
You "Big Picture" guys just don't get it.

See also - "Check out the orb in this blurry, artifact-ridden jpeg!"

 

[beachnut]

Someone can't see aircraft parts

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.

I see part of the wing. And it is the size you would expect in a KE impact with the ground at 40 degree, with the energy of impact at 2,921,240,279 Joules. Sorry yankee451, I used physics, something you and Fetzer make fun of and can't do to join reality. The good think you both are harmless and will not do more than talk about your fantasies on 911, and the fake movement which lies, ironically called, 911 Truth. What a joke.

2,921,240,279 joules at impact, equal to the energy in 1400 pounds of TNT, beats your weak fantasy missile.

It would take 85 of your JASSMs to equal the kinetic energy impact. you have no idea what you are talking about and how far you are from reality.

Here you and Fetzer explain you both don't know anything about physics. Your comments prove physics is alien to you.

http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim...eve%20deak.mp3
*WARNING* contains multiple instances of the J. Fetzer Maniacal Belly Laugh™

More aircraft parts you ignore, there are body parts too, because the plane hit at 487 knots, and had 2,921,240,279 joules in KE. A value you can't comprehend, or use practically.

... scattered pieces visible for a wide area all around the crater. Nothing like Shanksville.

A BIG LIE. Why do you post lies? Here are the parts, visible all around the crater for hundreds of feet, for acres. Scattered on the aircraft course. What course was that?

More parts over acres from Flight 93.

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?

Due to ignorance you used Pyrex balls at 3800 mph which don't leave a impact crater at 10 degrees, like 93 did at 40 degrees. The wings did what you call gashes, and the engines left two extra impact craters next to the fuselage, where all the people were crushed into the ground and parts ejected all over the place for hundreds of feet. You are blind, you can't see due to your fantasy.

If you could read the NASA photos, your gashes occur the opposite direction you have your missiles going, and at angles less than 4.5 degrees. You don't get your own fantasy right.

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

Based on your fantasy, you think missiles which did not exist did it? lol
An insane claim. You had no clue the Pyrex balls were going 3800 mph. That was funny. Then you picked the wrong angle; funnier.

Yankee451, named after Fahrenheit 451, where paper bursts into flames, fiction, and paper does not burn at 451F, it does at 451C. An ironic name choice, which is based on fiction, and is fiction - pushing fantasy.

Yankee451 will get a jet engine, accelerate it to 487 knots, at 40 degree to the ground to prove a jet engine can't bury itself going 487 knots.

When will you do this?

You have no idea there are aircraft parts in the photos, because you have no idea what a plane is made of; that take book learning. You don't do book learning, and you are proud of your ignorance of wings, and murder of people; how did you put it?
http://yankee451.com/2012/09/11/shanksville-crocodile-tears-for-the-fictional-dead/

You mistake me for someone who cares ...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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?

I've considered the possibility that a jet didn't actually crash at Shanksville several times over in this thread. You never seemed interested before.

I pointed out that when Agent 451 explained his evil plan to Number One he ended up in the mutant sea bass tank because it was such an utterly retarded plot. It had such colossal cost and manpower requirements and so very little chance of succeeding without being uncovered that it would be instantly rejected in favour of merely crashing a plane by any evil cabal not staffed by brainless dolts.

So if it were proven that you were right, it would mean that a search for the culprits would be provided with useful clues: the perpetrators must be a) incredibly well financed, highly influential and with huge manpower resources and b) quite unbelievably stupid.

Should narrow down the search a bit. Exclude anyone who isn't a drooling halfwit.

It would certainly make one wonder how people rise to such power when they show such staggeringly poor judgement.


Of course the vast preponderance of evidence all agrees that you are quite wrong, so the point is entirely moot.

 

[chris lz]

Yankee451 will get a jet engine, accelerate it to 487 knots, at 40 degree to the ground to prove a jet engine can't bury itself going 487 knots.

Beachnut, while on the subject of engines, for the benefit of debunkerism, would you care to give a very brief (few sentences) physics lesson on how an engine can gouge out an imprint and then (partly) be spewed out 600 yards to that pond. This notion is being scoffed at on another forum.

If you have the time,
Thanks

 

[chris lz]

This notion is being scoffed at on another forum.

And probably here too, now that I think of it.

 

[EvilBiker]

Belief has everything to do with it. You start at the "belief" and look for the evidence that fits. I started at the scene of the crime and let the evidence do the talking.

What evidence? Dude, you started out with the assumption that everybody is lying, came up with some scenario that fits your conspiratorial mind, and then try to shoehorn evidence in to fit it.

I can do the same thing - I say that some bright spark dredged up an old WW2 sea mine, and dropped it over Shanksville. That would explain the aircraft seen overhead the same time as the explosion, the weight of the mine would account for the buried material, the explosion and shrapnel from the decayed casing would account for the weird pattern. Prove me wrong.

Hey, I'm one better than you - I can tie in the overhead planes, AND my theory does not involve piloting 2 missiles to exact positions, just one fairly easy drop.

The trick here is to look at other stuff before making your initial assumption - for example, RADAR tracking, knowing what was going on in the area at the time - you know, like beachnut keeps on trying to drive into you. It tends to weed out the rubbish and get you on the right track.

Your "belief" is still and always will be a belief.

 

[JohnG]

but superscillious condescention will be returned and then some.

The difference though is you brought the supercilious condescension on yourself by being not only wrong, but tragically, unapologetically, consistently, hilariously, obnoxiously wrong.

Fair's fair, though. Let me let you in on a little secret: I don't know how to spell "supercilious", either (it's not a word I use, let alone see very much), so when my spellchecker identified my mangled misspelling, I thought to myself "you know, more often than not, spellchecker tends to be a better speller than I am, so in this instance I will defer to its expertise and accept the correction". Now someone else (not naming any names) may look at the same underlined piece of text and shout at the screen "what do you know about anything, you fancy pants spellchecker? Did you attend the school of hard knocks?" and then proceed to ignore the suggested correction.

What's the difference between me and this other theoretical person I refer to? One of us can accept criticism, the other one can't.

This is a 9/11 forum. I am a scholar of 9/11. If they handed out degrees in 9/11 research, I'd certainly have one. My attitude is testy because you guys claim to be "learned" but you don't seem to have the first clue in common sense research. You seem to rely on some "expert" to make a proclamation, but you won't take the time to learn for yourself. Not very learned sounding to me. One doesn't start this investigation with the assumption a jet did it, one starts by examining the evidence of the crash to determine whether or not it was possible.

No, I don't have your credentials. All I have is a decade of obsessive research into the architecture and site placement of the WTC, the construction methods, the history of the characters involved, the contractors, careful examination of the damage, endless hours researching military capabilites, not to mention year after year of sparring with cranks, and spooks and self-proclaimed geniuses with letters behind their names, all of whom talk big but won't address the evidence.

You've been obsessively researching for a decade? In an earlier post you wrote

And this my friends is the epitome of the type of person I've been squaring off against for the last half decade.

Does this mean you were researching for the first five years but didn't begin running your research past other other people until five years ago? Or are you padding your resume?

Sure it makes me cranky, but it doesn't make me wrong.

No, that doesn't make you wrong. Being wrong makes you wrong.

You don't get to call yourself a "Scholar" any more than you can call yourself a "Doctor", "Engineer", "Eagle Scout" or "Miss America". These titles are conferred upon you by designated people in the relevant fields after you have demonstrated to them that you are worthy of the title. It may sound unfair to some but it's the best method we have to discriminate those worthy of the title from the scores of deluded dilettantes. That's not to say "amateurs" can't and don't contribute to science and other areas, they certainly can and do. It's just that some sort of official training and accreditation, whether that training is in brain surgery or working a fryolator, tends to yield better results on average in the corresponding field when compared to people at varying levels of expertise merely conferring titles upon themselves.

There's just no point going on about all your obsessive hard work. Cargo cults no doubt work obsessively hard over the course of years to build airplanes out of palm fronds, bamboo and coconuts. That doesn't mean their "airplane" is going to get off the ground. The problem with cargo cults is twofold:

1. Their ignorance of a variety of subjects including the scientific method, engineering, aviation, aerodynamics and physics means that any attempt to create an airplane of their own will almost certainly end in failure.

2. Cargo cults engage in a special kind of magical thinking called sympathetic magic. The idea that if, say an object can be made to resemble a bird, then that object really is a bird, or at least has birdlike qualities (e.g., the ability to fly).*

The Cargo Cult's essential problems are shared with Conspiracy Theorists; people who wear their school of hard knocks/street smarts/"common sense"/outsider/amateur status (i.e., dilettantism) as a badge of honor. People who think that if a crater resembles (to them, at least) the results of a missile strike, then by God, that crater was caused by a missile).

Look, yankee, we've all been wrong about things, sometimes even important things, in our lives. I spent at least the first two decades of my life believing in all sorts of things I no longer believe. I'm cool with that, though. It's not like I "wasted" my life in believing those things, even though I did spend a lot of time "obsessively researching" those things. The key point is that I liked believing those things were true, but I liked the truth even better, so I researched the evidence both for and against the existence of the things I believed in and found (often to my profound disappointment, to be honest) that there was no logical basis for believing in those things. I'm not always happy about my hard-won knowledge, but I wouldn't go back to my happy ignorance, even if I could.

Recognizing you are wrong and admitting it isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength, in fact I'd go so far as to call it heroic. I hope you remember that if/when your wing experiment doesn't go the way you expect it to. And again, all snarkiness aside, I hope for your sake that you do finally carry out that experiment. No matter what it ends up proving it will certainly be a remarkable spectacle.






*Now to be fair, trying to create an object that does what an airplane does by manufacturing something that superficially resembles a airplane is a reasonable start, but without the grounding in at least the scientific method, it is going to take the cult longer, likely centuries longer, to manufacture a full-fledged airplane than it took the Wright Bothers and those who followed them. The cult is unwittingly stuck on an earlier method of acquiring knowledge (sympathetic magic, a sort of proto-science) that has been superseded by a far superior (scientific) method for acquiring knowledge.

 

[Redwood]

OK, suppose I accept that the missiles were used to create the crater.

How did the DNA and Remains of all the passengers and crew get there?
Were they herded off the aircraft by the FBI or CIA before being killed?
Would they shoot them, poison them, gas them?
Would they be chopped up by hand or would some kind of machine be used?

How many people does it take to murder, dismember and mutilate all those passengers and crew then transport them to the and seed the crater and the area with the bloody remains?
How do you recruit people to do it?

And what happens to the people who turn down the offer?

 

[Redwood]

Ok, so your conspirators fired three missiles that had a "success" rate of 80%, on momentum defying trajectories, with an overall chance of success of:

Success of 1 x Success of 2 x Success of 3,

thus

0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.512 {51.2%}

So they took a smidgen over a 50 / 50 chance (at way best, since your flight path violates physics without retrograde rockets on your missiles), on a brand new missile costing $$$$$$$$$$$$ to make a hole in the ground that looked like a plane, when they could have just crashed a plane into the ground, one that went somewhere anyway because it is missing from inventory and the RADAR and FDR data trails it all the way to the crash site, and no one found it anywhere else.

I don't think even Hollywood would buy that script (well, maybe Bowfinger would).

Afrim has written a great script! Afrim, explain the title "Chubby Rain".