How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[Mudcat]

To be fair when I first saw that picture I didn't understand that I was looking at an engine. Even now, knowing what it is I'm looking at, it's hard to believe that that used to be a working engine. However I remember something that I learned in class that one of the things they do with aircraft engines to determine if it is airworthy to install it in a test cell (complete with an actual cowling and pylon), attach an explosive (c4, I believe) to the engine, power up the engine, get it too full speed, then detonate the explosive.

In an instant, billions of dollars of development, millions of dollars of construction, and thousands of hours of testing is gone. Usually the engine is in bad shape after words, but I believe with a little TLC and enough money the engines could be made serviceable again. Which should give an idea what kind of forces the engines of Flight 93 went through.

 

[waypastvne]

Something struck this tree from the other side, snapping it down the middle,

So according to your evidence this is what the final approach of the JASSM missile would have looked like.

Is that correct ?

 

[yankee451]

Is that correct ?

No.

Still incorrect.

 

[waypastvne]

No.

Still incorrect.

Could you draw us a correct one, so we understand.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No.

Still incorrect.

What is the turn radius of a JASSM, at speed?

 

[Redwood]

originally posted by yankee451
yeah, that old chestnut rises to the top every so often. It's a testament to the power of rumor.

yeah, and what we are discussing here is more a testament to the power of imagination hallucination.

fify, jdh.

 

[yankee451]

Could you draw us a correct one, so we understand.

We?

You understand just fine. It must have come through the trees, meaning the tree tops must not be much of an issue for a JASSM's terminal dive. If the warhead can bore through concrete and not deviate for another quarter mile, it must not be phased by the trees.

Draw me a picture of the jet disappearing into the ground. So "we" can understand.

 

[332nd]

We?

You understand just fine. It must have come through the trees, meaning the tree tops must not be much of an issue for a JASSM's terminal dive. If the warhead can bore through concrete and not deviate for another quarter mile, it must not be phased by the trees.

So the missile's path was this?

 

[leftysergeant]

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?:

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/split-tree.png[/qimg]

A little training in fire fighting might have helped keep you from making such silly errors. Trees subjected to intense heat, especially if they have any kind of rot inside, will split like that. It is most common in lightening strikes, but will also occur in normal forest fires. Nothing strange here to the eye of anyone who knows what they are looking at.

Nobody had to put out that big fireball because most of it burned off in a couple of seconds. It was caused by fuel expressed from the aircraft as it burrowed in. There was only a small quantity of fuel left on the ground.

 

[leftysergeant]

We?

You understand just fine. It must have come through the trees, meaning the tree tops must not be much of an issue for a JASSM's terminal dive. If the warhead can bore through concrete and not deviate for another quarter mile, it must not be phased by the trees.

Horse hockey. A bullet will track straight through a solid pine board, but will zig-zag through a body as it hits bones. There is a limit to the resistance that any flying object can overcome, and they will be deflected into the path of least resistance. You have also failed to show that any tree was in any way damaged by a large projectile coming from beyond the trees toward the crater.

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

Actually, any ditch digger, like me, will tell you that you will have a different sort of crater in different soils because not all soil stays in place when you cut a trench into it.

The soil at Shanksville contained alsot no clay. It had no cohesion. It would fall back into the most carefullyt-dug ditch without a casing of some sort.

Flt 710 smacked into wet clay.

As anybody who has ever thrown a pot on a wheel, like me, will tell you, clay is is highly cohesive and tends to stay where it is shoved to and any ditch digger will tell you that it is slow to move back into a trench.

One need not have even a high school education to see that your "evidence" is crap.

 

[yankee451]

Horse hockey. A bullet will track straight through a solid pine board, but will zig-zag through a body as it hits bones. There is a limit to the resistance that any flying object can overcome, and they will be deflected into the path of least resistance. You have also failed to show that any tree was in any way damaged by a large projectile coming from beyond the trees toward the crater.

And yet there's the crater clear as day proclaiming 'a missile came through the trees and made this gash'.

I'm sure they weren't too concerned with the placement. They just needed a gash in a field. The media and academia would do the rest.

 

[beachnut]

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

The pond is 300 to 400 yards away. They need a lesson in facts. Do they know what the part was? How big was it? I think it was a part of the fan section. What do the super 911 truth resrechers know about the part?
http://www.pratt-whitney.com/PW2000_Engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_PW2000
Which part was it.
The core of the engine was going 10,000 rpm at impact - how far would a part be ejected at impact. From an aircraft rolling inverted.

A crash site like 93. Doubt the truthers will watch and understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff7h7Ll8Dl4


Flight 93 at impact:
-41.1 degee pitch, 142 degree roll angle, 487.5 knots impact, 386 knots ground speed, 187 mag heading, winds 297.4 true at 24.5 knots. (aircraft g on passengers at prior to impact goes from 1g to .5 g in the last second
This means the velocity component in the direction of 187 degree mag heading is about 365 knots plus wind. This means the aircraft is moving along the ground at more than 365 knots.
The velocity component into the ground is 322 knots, across the ground 365 knots - 487 knots at -41 degrees.

The energy of impact is 2,921,240,279 joules, equal to 1400 pounds of TNT. More than enough energy to eject parts of jet engine traveling with a component across the ground >600 feet per second, in less than 2 seconds the part would be past the pond. The engine core was rotating at 10,000 rpm at impact about 80 percent rpm. The fan section was at 40 percent of max rpm at impact.

Do the truthers understand Ricochet - 451 doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricochet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMMWV_Tracer_Fire_dark.JPEG

Part of an engine disk breaks and cuts through the case.

 

[chris lz]

Do they know what the part was? How big was it? I think it was a part of the fan section. What do the super 911 truth resrechers know about the part?

Thanks for that. I've heard entire engine, part of an engine. Don't know if there was ever a definitive description. Then they say, how could cockpit "bounce" after hitting ground. Again, I take it this is no more challenging to explain if you know your physics.

I don't understand why Yankee can believe (he has to if he accepts flight 710) a fuselage can dive out of site, but then continue to maintain wings cannot do same.

Yankee, if you're still tuning in, what do you say?

 

[yankee451]

Thanks for that. I've heard entire engine, part of an engine. Don't know if there was ever a definitive description. Then they say, how could cockpit "bounce" after hitting ground. Again, I take it this is no more challenging to explain if you know your physics.

I don't understand why Yankee can believe (he has to if he accepts flight 710) a fuselage can dive out of site, but then continue to maintain wings cannot do same.

Yankee, if you're still tuning in, what do you say?

I say, stop squirming and say what you mean.

 

[jaydeehess]

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?

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.

^^^this^^^

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

....really? that's the post of mine you choose to respond to?

Fact is , it IS your premise so to YOU it is not a hypothetical therefore we ask YOU to prove that the crater WAS created by something other than a Boeing 757, and specifically that two missiles can intersect so precisely, after one hits trees, at a point a dozen feet underground.


(jeez, everytime I mention that scenario I am filled with a sense of how ridiculous it is)

 

[Slowvehicle]

And yet there's the crater clear as day proclaiming 'a missile came through the trees and made this gash'.

I'm sure they weren't too concerned with the placement. They just needed a gash in a field. The media and academia would do the rest.

What is the turn radius or a JASSM, at speed?

 

[chris lz]

I say, stop squirming and say what you mean.

I already have made the point clear several times.

Let me do it with letters.

x= crash in which fuselage burrows out of sight.
y= crash in which wings burrow out of sight.
z= crash in which BOTH fuselage and wings burrow out of sight.

I assume you accept the possibility of x, since that = flight 710.

SO, how does crash physics rule in x, but as you keep insisting, rule out y and z?

note: I am speaking in theoretical terms for now, so in your answer, please don't mix up theory with the specifics of flight 710 or 93.

Thanks

 

[yankee451]

I already have made the point clear several times.

Let me do it with letters.

x= crash in which fuselage burrows out of sight.
y= crash in which wings burrow out of sight.
z= crash in which BOTH fuselage and wings burrow out of sight.

I assume you accept the possibility of x, since that = flight 710.

SO, how does crash physics rule in x, but as you keep insisting, rule out y and z?

note: I am speaking in theoretical terms for now, so in your answer, please don't mix up theory with the specifics of flight 710 or 93.

Thanks

Did the crater cover up the entire jet after 710 crashed?

 

[yankee451]

What is the turn radius of a JASSM, at speed?

Good question. What is their turn radius on their terminal dive?