How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[leftysergeant]

Sight unseen. How very dogmatic of you.

The problem here is that we have a diverse group of people with an amazing variety of life experiences looking at your blather and finding holes in it that might not be evident to everyone at first glance. We have rocket scienctists. We have structural engineers. We have combat engineers. We have potters and painters and fire fighters and airplane drivers, ditch diggers and institutional cooks, all of whom have seen things that relate to what you are trying to say happened. We have gun collectors and poets who see your vision of what a crater should look like and laugh, or see what ends you think a faked crash would serve and laugh. There are dozens of people from all walks of life looking for flaws in your reasoning, and most reach the same conclusion.



Let's back track a little bit here, though. You are trying to compare the crater to the effects of a high explosive device. I, a gun collector, crash fire fighter, retired soldier and ditch digger, see it as nothing like what you envision.

As i pointed out earlier, an explosive device will throw debris in all directions. A bullet will throw most of it in one direction, or in a circle. It all depends on the angle. If the angle of impact is not straight in, material will continue moving mostly in one direction. In the case of Flt 93, the plane came in like an oblique bullet. Part of it penetrated the surface and contiued on in the original direction, some was deflected on the surface, but broken up into pieces, all of which continue more or less in the original direction.

Here is a link to some video of bullets striking various surfaces. Note that whern the angle of impact is relativel low, stuff gets pushed away from one side and carried down- range. There is a good example of that at the 1:19 mark here. At the2:50 mark or so, we see the rear part of the bullet reduced to a spray that rises some distance above the plane and continues dow-range while most of the bullet continues through the plane to erupt with great vigor on the underside. This is the best possible comparison to what happened at Shanksville.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'm still working on the "what did it". If it turns out it was cruise missiles, i'm pretty sure al Qaeda doesn't have the capability.

...What is the radius of the tightest turn of which a JASSM is capable, under the most favourable conditions?

 

[Slowvehicle]

The question is irrelevant. The missile has extensive waypoint capabilities. It would have no problem maneuvering into position.

It is possible that you do not understand the word "irrelevant". Your idea depends upon a performance envelope about which I have my doubts. I have repeatedly, patiently, asked you to begin substantiating the performance you claim. You have been derisive of the idea that it was a 757 that hit the ground outside of Shanksville because "a 757 can't do that". What I have asked you to do is to being the process of demonstrating that a JASSM could have "done that". My question is an opportunity for you to demonstrate your understanding, and to begin to substantiate your idea. You dismiss the 757 as a physical impossibility; I am asking you to take steps to demonstrate that the JASSM is a physical possibility. The performance envelope of the JASSM is absolutely relevant and germane to the question of what it is possible for a JASSM to do.

So, what is the radius of the tightest turn of which a JASSM is capable as it "maneuvers into position"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't know, probably not great. The witness could well have seen the missile that blew off the tops of the trees.

What is the "not great" radius of the tightest turn a JASSM is capable of performing as it "maneuvers into postion"?

 

[tsig]

From what I have read, the fuselage struck muddy ground near a river at 600 MPH, blowing a big crater at the bottom of which they found the accordioned remains of the fuselage.

The differences are many, not the least of which is a 757 is a bigger, heavier plane than the electra, the ground was hard and dry as opposed to being muddy ground near a river, and just as in every other high speed jet crash example, flight 710 had parts of plane and humans visible all around the crater. Every other high speed crash except flight 93 that is.

This is why I am so impatient with these comparisons! They're not valid in the least. Flight 93 allegedly burrowed into the hard, rocky ground that had been settling for more than a decade, WINGS AND ALL. They say they had to dig fifteen feet just to find it because the ground sealed behind it like a tomb! Who writes this stuff.

Apparently you do.

 

[tsig]

I'm still working on the "what did it". If it turns out it was cruise missiles, i'm pretty sure al Qaeda doesn't have the capability.

You might work on the why.

Why did someone fire two(three) missiles into the ground to make that mark?

 

[tsig]

The question is irrelevant. The missile has extensive waypoint capabilities. It would have no problem maneuvering into position.

Suddenly I have this cartoon in my head were the bullet chases the guy around.

 

[Mark F]

You might work on the why.

Why did someone fire two(three) missiles into the ground to make that mark?

Indeed, if one wants to make an airplane shaped mark in the dirt in the middle of nowhere why would they use missiles and not just rig the ground with some sort of explosive device ahead of time? It would be much easier, much cheaper, easier to conceal and infinately more reliable. In fact, everything about such a plan makes so much more sense than Yankee's proposal,....

Ooops, I think I have just given someone a new idea.

 

[Locknar]

The discussion is getting a bit off-topic and personal. Please stay on topic, address the argument, and cut the bickering (ie. keep it civil and polite).

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Animal]

You might work on the why.

Why did someone fire two(three) missiles into the ground to make that mark?

A better question would be.....Why did someone murder and dismember the passengers and crew, disassemble an aircraft,luggage etc and bury it in a field in Pa., within the timeframe of the 911 attacks, fake radar data, flight records etc, bribe the gate personal, caterers, etc that boarded and serviced the plane, and then fire two(three) missiles into the ground to make that mark, while eliminating all traces of said missiles from inventories and flight records?

 

[NoahFence]

Although inconveniently there are no cropped-off trees proclaiming 'yeah, what he said'.

Still, at least there's the crater, and we can be sure the crater looks like a missile crater since it closely resembles all those other low-angle missile craters you showed us. Oh. No, wait.

ooh!! I know...

They shot the missile from just in front of the trees - so it accounts for the low trajectory, and the scarring of the trees but not the entire forest.

I still need to invent a retarded fantasy on the logistics, but when you come up with a massively implausible scenario, with a conclusion, do we really need logistics? It's MAGIC!

 

[Macgyver1968]

Indeed, if one wants to make an airplane shaped mark in the dirt in the middle of nowhere why would they use missiles and not just rig the ground with some sort of explosive device ahead of time? It would be much easier, much cheaper, easier to conceal and infinately more reliable. In fact, everything about such a plan makes so much more sense than Yankee's proposal,....

Ooops, I think I have just given someone a new idea.

I asked the same thing here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8991337#post8991337

Why bother with 3/4 of million dollar missiles and precise trajectories? Why not just send a guy to the field in the middle of the night and plant much cheaper c4 and det cord? It's be much easier and cheaper than missiles.

I know it's not as sexy of a theory, but it fits the KISS principle.

and got this response:

I don't know, but if you want to demonstrate how the crater is better explained by using c4, sing out.

 

[yankee451]

You drew a flight path that showed the missile overflying a witness. From that point it would have to execute a 50g + turn to hit at the desired angle. What's the maximum turn rate of a JASSM?

I guess it is relevant, please forgive me, I thought you were referring to waypastvne's "zig-zag" drawing. But I repeat, I don't know the turning radius, if you can find that information you've done better than I have.

If Susan saw a missile and if the turning radius doesn't fit with the gash, then she must have seen the one that detonated over the trees. Thanks for the insight.

 

[DGM]

I guess it is relevant, please forgive me, I thought you were referring to waypastvne's "zig-zag" drawing. But I repeat, I don't know the turning radius, if you can find that information you've done better than I have.

If Susan saw a missile and if the turning radius doesn't fit with the gash, then she must have seen the one that detonated over the trees. Thanks for the insight.

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/detonated-in-the-trees.png[/qimg]

So now you have 3 missile detonations? Have you talked to the guy in the junk yard (very close by) that saw a plane?

 

[Mark F]

I asked the same thing here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8991337#post8991337



and got this response:

Like I said before - this whole discussion is a monumental waste of time. Nobody is going to be persuaded by the other side and Yankee is going to do nothing useful with his earth-shattering revelations.

 

[yankee451]

So now you have 3 missile detonations? Have you talked to the guy in the junk yard (very close by) that saw a plane?

I speculated early on they mistakenly detonated one in the trees, but it seems it might well have been done deliberately.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I speculated early on they mistakenly detonated one in the trees, but it seems it might well have been done deliberately.

Here is the problem:

It seems to me that your idea depends upon $2.1 million dollars of missile that was not available in 2001, performing within an envelope of which you have no definition and for which you have no source. This is why your idea gets dismissed as speculation.

Follow:
Even if you were able to indicate that one missile (if one was used as a ballistic slug), or two missiles, or three, carried an individual or combined explosive payload capable of releasing the amount of energy to make the crater (not only at least that much, but no more), you still need to demonstrate that the JASSM would have been a capable platform. At 10°, the missile coming from across the road would have had to plough through the trees to impact the crater site; or, failing that, would have had to jink down after clearing the trees and still recover enough to strike at the perfect angle.

You still have not dealt with the problem of the shape of the nose cone of the JASSM. Yes, the JASSM was designed to penetrate--but at steep angles. Take a schematic of a JASSM and put it at a 10° angle against a flat surface, and you will see that, at that shallow angle, a JASSM would skip, carom off, rather than penetrating.

You may not believe that the Flight 93 caused the crater--and that is your right. Your idea about JASSMs being the tool has some gaping holes.

Instead of making extravagant claims without substance, why not work to discover, or provide, the substance? Instead of simply insulting and denigrating anyone who may disagree with you, why not deal in substance?

 

[chris lz]

Yankee,

Wondering if you're still planning on answering my question.

Thanks

 

[EvilBiker]

I speculated early on they mistakenly detonated one in the trees, but it seems it might well have been done deliberately.

So, they used a third missile just to deliberately detonate a tree?

What colour is the sky in the world you inhabit? Do you consider shark-jumping a national pastime?

/ignore

 

[LSSBB]

Duplicate post.