How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[LSSBB]

Whenever you address me.

I was misread then. I have known self-taught people who have demonstrated great competence. Not all have met the bar, then again not all who are educated met the bar of competence either.

Say, what happened to all the physical evidence of missiles, like blast marks on materials, missile shard, a radar track, inventory irregularities, expenditure to buy and build them?

 

[switchpoint]

Well it was no where to be seen around the crater

,
Yes it was. You were shown pictures.

and if it didn't disappear into the ground why did they claim they had to dig 15 feet just to find the wreckage, and that the deeper they went the bigger the pieces were?

Because some of it was in the ground.

Newspaper reports claimed the jet disappeared and burrowed into the ground which closed behind it like a tomb - very emotional language, propaganda like almost wouldn't you say.

So?

While in NYC we have the police talking about molten lava and the fire department talking about rivers of molten steel, in Shanksville the media reported the jet disappeared into the ground, and later they reported the filght recorders were found at 15 and 25 feet deep. So when they claim all these things, and you can't see any debris outside of the crater, where else would the plane be?

What if you did see debris outside the crater, like in all those photos?

 

[yankee451]

,
Yes it was. You were shown pictures.

Because some of it was in the ground.

So?

What if you did see debris outside the crater, like in all those photos?

Unilke EVERY other high speed crash, Shanksville had no depris around the crash site; not visible from the air nor from the ground. The only parts shown are in tight photographs, most without context. Where's the wing debris the engine was attached to? Wouldn't the more massive engine have buried deeper than the wing? The jet should have been turned to confetti which would have been visible all around the site, but the official story ihas it the deeper they went, the more they found in the dry, hard rocky ground that had been settling for more than a decade.

 

[tsig]

Unilke EVERY other high speed crash, Shanksville had no depris around the crash site; not visible from the air nor from the ground. The only parts shown are in tight photographs, most without context. Where's the wing debris the engine was attached to? Wouldn't the more massive engine have buried deeper than the wing? The jet should have been turned to confetti which would have been visible all around the site, but the official story ihas it the deeper they went, the more they found in the dry, hard rocky ground that had been settling for more than a decade.

That's exactly what I see, small shredded plane parts all around a crater made by a plane diving into the ground.

 

[leftysergeant]

Unilke EVERY other high speed crash, Shanksville had no depris around the crash site; not visible from the air nor from the ground. The only parts shown are in tight photographs, most without context. Where's the wing debris the engine was attached to? Wouldn't the more massive engine have buried deeper than the wing? The jet should have been turned to confetti which would have been visible all around the site, but the official story ihas it the deeper they went, the more they found in the dry, hard rocky ground that had been settling for more than a decade.

That you keep repeating that bull **** is part of why we are laughing at you.

Compared to the grounnd whre Flt 710 smacked in, the ground at Shanksville was quite fluffy.

Ask any ditch digger, and he will tell you he would rather dig a trench in the Shanksville site when it was wet because it would be a little more coherent and slower to cave in.

 

[NoahFence]

Unilke EVERY other high speed crash, Shanksville had no depris around the crash site; not visible from the air nor from the ground. The only parts shown are in tight photographs, most without context. Where's the wing debris the engine was attached to? Wouldn't the more massive engine have buried deeper than the wing? The jet should have been turned to confetti which would have been visible all around the site, but the official story ihas it the deeper they went, the more they found in the dry, hard rocky ground that had been settling for more than a decade.

You are a liar.

 

[chris lz]

The jet should have been turned to confetti which would have been visible all around the site,

How do you know this?

 

[chris lz]

Unilke EVERY other high speed crash, Shanksville had no depris around the crash site

You have granted that a fuselage, under certain circumstances, can do a disappearing act. But in a prior post you have rejected that the wings can do this too. The reader infers from this that you believe there's a principle in crash physics which allows fuselages to borrow out of site, but forbids wings to do this.

What principle is this? C'mon, this is what, the 4th time I've politely asked you for an explanation.

Thanks

 

[Slowvehicle]

Again? Still? Really?

Backspace is your friend. I am not. You can keep repeating the same drivel all you like.

So, address the problem of maneuverability.

 

[Travis]

It has suddenly occurred to me that yankee451 apparently doesn't believe in momentum.


Okay, so, a 757 traveling 500mph hits the ground at a 45 degree angle and you expect there to be a pile of plane confetti on the surface? Please explain the physics that leads to this.

 

[chris lz]

Again? Still? Really?

Backspace is your friend. I am not. You can keep repeating the same drivel all you like.

Backspace is my friend because refusing to answer is yours. You are the one who believes fuselages can disasppear, but not wings.

If this ISN'T your view, kindly correct it for us.

 

[chris lz]

Again? Still? Really?

Backspace is your friend. I am not. You can keep repeating the same drivel all you like.

Again, still really? I ask you FOUR times and you can't explain your own view of crash physics in any of your 4 replies?

To members of this forum, is it "drivel" to ask why Yankee thinks a fuselage can disappear into dirt, but wings cannot?

Opinions welcome.

 

[Slowvehicle]

 

[yankee451]

[qimg]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8249/8474285243_8519bce01b_m.jpg[/qimg]

Well, you believe a jet can disappear into the ground and cut through steel, are you saying the fiberglass fuselage would riccochet off the ground? Wouldn't it shatter on impact, or do you think the fuselage and wings are what "penetrate"? It is a missile after all.

Has anyone found the manual yet? I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what they think they mean by "aerostable slug".

 

[yankee451]

It has suddenly occurred to me that yankee451 apparently doesn't believe in momentum.


Okay, so, a 757 traveling 500mph hits the ground at a 45 degree angle and you expect there to be a pile of plane confetti on the surface? Please explain the physics that leads to this.

Stay tuned.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You can click backspace too. I even drew you a picture.

You have not even begun to address the ability of missiles (that were not available in 2001, but that is a different problem) to perform the maneuvers necessary to hit the ground where and how you want them to have hit, with the precision your idea would require. And that is only one of the hurdles you have not begun to address.

How tall are the trees, on the other side of the gravel road?

 

[yankee451]

Again, still really? I ask you FOUR times and you can't explain your own view of crash physics in any of your 4 replies?

To members of this forum, is it "drivel" to ask why Yankee thinks a fuselage can disappear into dirt, but wings cannot?

Opinions welcome.

Yeah, you gave me contrived choices to make a lame point that if it proved anything it was how petty your argument was.

I have already admitted I'm not a crash expert, but at least I'm honest about it.

You were saying?

 

[yankee451]

You have not even begun to address the ability of missiles (that was not available in 2001, but that is a different problem) to perform the maneuvers necessary to hit the ground where and how you want them to have hit, with the precision your idea would require. And that is only one of the hurdles you have not begun to address.

How tall are the trees, on the other side of the gravel road?

Proving they did exist is easy as easy as a backspace too; it only continues to harm your own credibility by claiming they didn't exist.

You tell me. How tall are the trees?

What's the turning radius of the JASSM?

Ultimately do the answers matter when it comes to calculating whether a 900lb cylinder measuring 12x60 inches could cause those gashes? Once the calculations are done, I'm assuming the trajectory will be easy to glean and duplicate. If they're not 10 degrees, fine - it doesn't matter either, it was just a guess based on some oblique meteorite photos I saw. The math is coming. All will be settled.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well, you believe a jet can disappear into the ground and cut through steel, are you saying the fiberglass fuselage would riccochet off the ground? Wouldn't it shatter on impact, or do you think the fuselage and wings are what "penetrate"? It is a missile after all.

Has anyone found the manual yet? I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what they think they mean by "aerostable slug".

At what point have I ever said that a jet "disappeared" into the ground?

If you do not understand the function of the fuselage, and if you think that the fuselage is "fiberglass", and do not understand how a JASSM achieves "penetration" against hardened targets, and do not understand what the result of such a shallow angle would be, and do not have a feel for the performance envelope of a wing with the aspect ratio seen on a JASSM, why select it for your idea?

"Aerostable slug"? Here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=aerostable+slug

 

[yankee451]

That you keep repeating that bull **** is part of why we are laughing at you.

Compared to the grounnd whre Flt 710 smacked in, the ground at Shanksville was quite fluffy.

Ask any ditch digger, and he will tell you he would rather dig a trench in the Shanksville site when it was wet because it would be a little more coherent and slower to cave in.

"ask any ditch-digger"

"quite fluffy"

Okay, so you see, the official story is the jet disappeared into the "fluffy" ground.

Just ask any ditch digger. Turns out I had to shovel out an 80x5 foot ditch one summer, followed by deep shovel work all around the foundation and the whole property for drainaige over a couple years. I'm what you might call an expert ditch digger and when I see big chunks of rock in dry soil, "fluffy" is not the first word rolling off my tongue.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200060.jpg