How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[yankee451]

Times and dates please for the aerial shots of the site you have carefully chosen for us. As there are no people or vehicles in shot (but vehicle tracks indicate they were there), I invite you to consider that the absence of visible debris is because crash investigators have already removed it.

I guess it's possible, I mean two weeks later they claim to have found 95 percent of the invisible plane.

So the ground level photos showing no debris around the crater must have been taken after the fact too? You'd think there would be something out there that could support the plane meme.

The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/inv.pennsylvania.site/index.html

 

[GlennB]

I guess it's possible, I mean two weeks later they claim to have found 95 percent of the invisible plane.

So the ground level photos showning no debris around the crater must have been taken after the fact too? You'd think there would be something out there that could support the plane meme.

Beachnut and others have supplied many photos taken soon after the event that show large amounts of aircraft debris scattered over a wide area.

Some of your photos above could very well have been taken just after, but are from an altitude and of a resolution that the debris wouldn't be visible in the photo.

Why this impresses you is a mystery. I might as well present a photo of a football pitch and use it to argue that the world is flat ....

 

[Mudcat]

Here's what I don't understand about your 2-3 missile theory. Since the two missiles had to strike the ground at precisely the right spot in order to create a plane shaped hole....this would mean the "perps" had to pick that specific location and that particular orientation. Why would they make it harder for themselves and pick a location so close to trees...when they could have moved a couple 100 meters away, and been in the middle of an open field with no obstacles to avoid?

That doesn't make any sense. No one would do that.

It's one of the golden rules of Conspiracy Theorists: Put forth the most ridiculous 'theory' imaginable that no reasonable person could be able to accept.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

I guess it's possible, I mean two weeks later they claim to have found 95 percent of the invisible plane.

Ah, I thought Wonder Woman had been a little quiet of late...

 

[yankee451]

Beachnut and others have supplied many photos taken soon after the event that show large amounts of aircraft debris scattered over a wide area.

Some of your photos above could very well have been taken just after, but are from an altitude and of a resolution that the debris wouldn't be visible in the photo.

Why this impresses you is a mystery. I might as well present a photo of a football pitch and use it to argue that the world is flat ....

As I've said before, all the other high speed crashes show lots of debris from the air. They didn't have to dig them up far from the curious eyes of onlookers. They were visible all around.

 

[abaddon]

I guess it's possible, I mean two weeks later they claim to have found 95 percent of the invisible plane.

So the ground level photos showing no debris around the crater must have been taken after the fact too? You'd think there would be something out there that could support the plane meme.

Good grief. All of the scattered surface debris would be the very first thing to be removed. You don't just chunder in with a backhoe to start digging in the crater straight away, wrecking the surface debris evidence.

Can you not see that?

 

[TheRedWorm]

As I've said before, all the other high speed crashes show lots of debris from the air. They didn't have to dig them up far from the curious eyes of onlookers. They were visible all around.

So? How do those crashes compare to 93, which was deliberately flown into the ground so as to murder those on board?

 

[chris lz]

As I've said before, all the other high speed crashes show lots of debris from the air. They didn't have to dig them up far from the curious eyes of onlookers. They were visible all around.

Your argument is "this is a first."

How's this for a first:

-conspiracy targets rural grass for no fathomable reason, raising the 9/11 death toll by a hefty 2%.

-To convince everyone of a 757 crash, the forces that be tried hard not to make it look like a typical 757 crash.

-But they did this is such a way that the crash experts at the NTSB renowned for their crash expertness were easily fooled, every last one of them.

-But an admitted non-crash expert through his admitted non-crash expertness, and on only his argument this has never happened before can determine with absolute certainty the crash scene was staged.

-They managed to convince the 1100 recovery workers that a 757 crashed at the site, not a single one reporting any anomalies.

-Then they decided to plant numerous fake witnesses who reported seeing the plane itself.

-Then they decided to either create fake relatives by the dozens, or dupe fake relatives by the dozens with an unproven form of voice technology, also a "first."

-Then they faked the DNA

-Then they faked the radar tapes

-Then they faked the seismic stamp of the event

-Then they faked the black boxes

-Then they convinced everyone at United Airlines the flight never existed.

-Then they said to themsleves, "Wow, the death toll can now rise by a hefty2%."

-Now take F93, and multiply these unlikelihoods by a factor of at least 4 (3 other staged events) and by all the trouble to wire three buildings with explosives, causing another "first": the controlled demolition of 3 skyscrapers taller than any previous demolition.

-These events happen in broad daylight for maximum media documentation.



Which of these two "firsts" is more plausible to you?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Your argument is "this is a first."

How's this for a first:

-conspiracy targets rural grass for no fathomable reason, raising the 9/11 death toll by a hefty 2%.

-To convince everyone of a 757 crash, the forces that be tried hard not to make it look like a typical 757 crash.

-But they did this is such a way that the crash experts at the NTSB renowned for their crash expertness were easily fooled, every last one of them.

-But an admitted non-crash expert through his admitted non-crash expertness, and on only his argument this has never happened before can determine with absolute certainty the crash scene was staged.

-They managed to convince the 1100 recovery workers that a 757 crashed at the site, not a single one reporting any anomalies.

-Then they decided to plant numerous fake witnesses who reported seeing the plane itself.

-Then they decided to either create fake relatives by the dozens, or dupe fake relatives by the dozens with an unproven form of voice technology, also a "first."

-Then they faked the DNA

-Then they faked the radar tapes

-Then they faked the seismic stamp of the event

-Then they faked the black boxes

-Then they convinced everyone at United Airlines the flight never existed.

-Then they said to themsleves, "Wow, the death toll can now rise by a hefty2%."

-Now take F93, and multiply these unlikelihoods by a factor of at least 4 (3 other staged events) and by all the trouble to wire three buildings with explosives, causing another "first": the controlled demolition of 3 skyscrapers taller than any previous demolition.

-These events happen in broad daylight for maximum media documentation.



Which of these two "firsts" is more plausible to you?

When you put it that way, it's almost as if yank's 'theory' sounds ridiculous.

 

[NoahFence]

So the ground level photos showing no debris around the crater must have been taken after the fact too? You'd think there would be something out there that could support the plane meme.

The bolded has been proven to be false, a thousand times yet you still feel the need to lie. Do you HONESTLY think you're fooling anybody?

 

[NoahFence]

As I've said before, all the other high speed crashes show lots of debris from the air. They didn't have to dig them up far from the curious eyes of onlookers. They were visible all around.

And this high-speed crash shows plenty of debris, as well. One simply has to be honest about it and not a liar.

 

[Mudcat]

So? How do those crashes compare to 93, which was deliberately flown into the ground so as to murder those on board?

I thought that was done by the passengers because they couldn't keep in control of the aircraft so they drove it into the first patch of ground they could stop their captors from reaching the destination or something like that?

 

[abaddon]

I thought that was done by the passengers because they couldn't keep in control of the aircraft so they drove it into the first patch of ground they could stop their captors from reaching the destination or something like that?

Don't think so. The rebellious passengers never gained any control over the aircraft. CVR reveals the jackers crashed it when they realised that the passengers were going to gain entry to the cockpit no matter what.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/12/flight93.transcript.pdf

 

[Mudcat]

Don't think so. The rebellious passengers never gained any control over the aircraft. CVR reveals the jackers crashed it when they realised that the passengers were going to gain entry to the cockpit no matter what.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/12/flight93.transcript.pdf

I see, thanks for the correction. Guess those losers were bigger cowards than I thought.

 

[abaddon]

I see, thanks for the correction. Guess those losers were bigger cowards than I thought.

They were so close to breaching the cockpit, it makes me wonder, Would there be a troofer movement at all if we had instead a plane full of heros, perps in custody, aircraft on the ground. All determined in a matter of how many moments do you have?

 

[Dog Town]

Would there be a troofer movement at all if we had instead a plane full of heros, perps in custody, aircraft on the ground.

Yes.
One word. Patsy! And no, I don't mean the hot blonde chic two doors down.

 

[jaydeehess]

duplicate post

 

[jaydeehess]

Stay tuned.

^^post 1593 ^^ in this thread and still we wait for you to prove even one of your extrodinary, incredible, bald contentions.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by abaddon
Would there be a troofer movement at all if we had instead a plane full of heros, perps in custody, aircraft on the ground.

Yes.
One word. Patsy! And no, I don't mean the hot blonde chic two doors down.

All too true, alas. Conspiracists don't reason from facts to a conclusion. They assume a conclusion and work backwards from there.

 

[jaydeehess]

All too true, alas. Conspiracists don't reason from facts to a conclusion. They assume a conclusion and work backwards from there.

I found a good example of that very thing for you

This video demonstrates how crusie missiles striking at trajectories of less than ten degrees from horizontal caused the gash at Shanksville.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQTNy6Jb26A&feature=player_embedded

In the below screenshot from Google Earth, the dotted red line roughly matches Susan McElwain's location and her description of the direction of travel of the “small white plane”, with that of the left side of the gash. I believe the left side of the gash would have struck first, and would not have detonated. These missiles can be used as “aerostable slugs”, which I interpret as “they don’t need to detonate”.
...