How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[Andy_Ross]

If Flight 93 didn't crash into the field, where is it now?
Where are the passengers and crew?
Where did it go after it took off and where did it land?

How did the wrecked parts of the aircraft get to the crash site?
How did the remains and DNA of the passengers and crew get to the wreck site?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If the damage indicates missiles caused it, then this couldn't be a "rogue" operation. I'll let you put two and two together.

OK. I put two and two together and realise they'd be insane not to just make the crater with a 757.

It produces a crash site that looks exactly right because it is right. It means you don't have to dress up the crash site before everyone else gets there and you don't have to fake the radar or worry about eyewitnesses or responders finding missile parts that shouldn't be there.

Why do it your way? They'd have to be drooling imbeciles.

 

[sts60]

Okay, so back on topic....

Sure, but to be fair, you brought up the lunar atmosphere, and cited the paper which uses data from the Apollo lunar landing missions. I'll assume that, since you are referring to said government-supplied data, you generally agree that the Apollo missions happened, and leave it at that. (Of course, if you do not agree, we could always discuss in the general conspiracies forum.)

 

[Mudcat]

When 'they' planned to make a 757 crash site, why do you think they decide to do it using your ridiculously convoluted method instead of just crashing a 757?

Not like this would be difficult to do. Last year, as a special on Discovery, a private group bought an aircraft (a Boeing 727, according to google (I didn't actually watch it)), set it up for remote control, and intentionally crashed it... On national television!

How much harder would it be the government to do so and blame it on terrorists compared to launching a missile strike and making it look like an aircraft crash site?

Damn, Conspiracy Theories are dumb.

 

[yankee451]

And missiles aren't remotely responsible for it. That is what we have been trying to tell you this whole time, if you'd stop ignoring people.





Assuming you are right about it being a missile strike, which you aren't, why couldn't it have been a rouge operation?

Rogue operations don't get their hands on before-market cruise missiles, broadcast fake jets on national T.V, ensure silence and cooperation witl Anthrax from Fort Detrick and then launch long-planned invasions to force Pax Americana down the world's throat.

 

[yankee451]

It doesn't.

Be specific.

 

[Animal]

Your big beef seems to be that because the Shanksville site did not look exactly like other sites it couldn't possibly be an air crash and must be a missile strike cover up?

There is no polite way to say this: That is stupid.

That is like saying because no two air crashes look exactly alike that they must all be missile strike cover ups.

Simply, no amount of facts will be cause to change his belief in woo. We might as fill him in on the secret........the entire world (except for the few hundreds involved in the troofer movement) are part of the grand conspiracy.

 

[NoahFence]

Rogue operations don't get their hands on before-market cruise missiles, broadcast fake jets on national T.V, ensure silence and cooperation witl Anthrax from Fort Detrick and then launch long-planned invasions to force Pax Americana down the world's throat.

Neither did the US government. There were no fake jets. There were real jets, real passengers and real damage.

Let me ask you - why do you CTers insist on trolling behavior? What is it with you people? Seriously. Do you get an adreneline rush from others pulling their hair out at your idiocy?

 

[Oystein]

Be specific.

I already was specific:

That's a fantasy you made up.

 

[yankee451]

How desperate? Desperate enough to fraudulently put a picture from a *********** movie in a thread and when get called on it, make up some silly little quip?

That desperate, champ?

Because that seems pretty *********** desperate!

Thanks for posting.

It wasn't put there fraudulently, it was put there by mistake, but even so if art imitates life, you'd think they would have scattered jet parts around to make it look more like what you're trying to describe. But they didn't, did they? They tried to match the scene with the other images of the crater already available in the public domain.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Yankee, let's assume you are absolutely 100% right. No oke, I'm assuming that a missile was fired into a field and it wasn't a plane. These other people are wrong, you are correct. No arguments from me on what hit.

You with me so far? Ok good.

Now, can you help me with a couple of things? Remember, we're going on the supposition that you are correct.

1. Why didn't they just fly flight 93 into the ground?

2. Since flight 93 wasn't flown into the ground, where did the plane and the people inside go?

 

[yankee451]

Neither did the US government. There were no fake jets. There were real jets, real passengers and real damage.

And you know this how?

Let me ask you - why do you CTers insist on trolling behavior? What is it with you people? Seriously. Do you get an adreneline rush from others pulling their hair out at your idiocy?

Because you won't come to my turf to discuss it, and it needs to be discussed.

 

[Oystein]

And you know this how?

He looked at all the evidence:

He looked at the radar evidence. You know that radar records track UA93 all the way to a field near Shanksville?
He looked at the FDR data evidence. You know that the FDR was recovered and decoded, and its data works out to a pilot-induced crash in a field near Shanksville?
He looked at the evidence of debris and human remains found in and around the crater in a field near Shanksville.
He looked at the DNA data won from human remains found in and around the crater in a field near Shanksville.
He looked at the evidence established by eye witnesses who saw a plane, plane parts, human remains.

That's how.

 

[yankee451]

Yankee, let's assume you are absolutely 100% right. No oke, I'm assuming that a missile was fired into a field and it wasn't a plane. These other people are wrong, you are correct. No arguments from me on what hit.

YOu with me so far? Ok good.

Now, can you help me with a couple of things? Remember, we're going on the supposition that you are correct.

1. Why didn't they just fly flight 93 into the ground?

2. Since flight 93 wasn't flown into the ground, where did the plane and the people inside go?

1. Because it wasn't there. Because there would be evidence. Messy stuff like bodies and identifyable plane parts, and flight plans, and pilots and hijackers.

2. Since missiles caused the damage, then all the reports of radar, passenger revolts, and all the other drama should be considered suspect because they come from the most-likely suspects, don't they.

 

[NoahFence]

And you know this how?

Eyeballs. Millions of eyeballs trained on the twin towers. A substantial number of which were not on TV, but rather in person. Can't fake that, kiddo.

Because you won't come to my turf to discuss it, and it needs to be discussed.

Known trolls call you a troll on your turf.

 

[beachnut]

It wasn't put there fraudulently, it was put there by mistake, but even so if art imitates life, you'd think they would have scattered jet parts around to make it look more like what you're trying to describe. But they didn't, did they? They tried to match the scene with the other images of the crater already available in the public domain.

You put out a fake photo of flight 93 crater as proof of no parts. You google at random and post lies based on your fake photo. You use a missile not available in the military inventory on 911. Looks like you will lie about anything to spread your fantasy. Does common sense tell you to lie about 911?

You ignored the photos of Flight 93 debris.

And you know this how?

Empirical data

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf
empirical data
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf
RADAR data proves Flight 93, a 757 made the crater.

FBI did the biggest investigation ever.

DNA proves who died when 93 crashed. You lost, and will repeat this failure.

Because you won't come to my turf to discuss it, and it needs to be discussed.

You live in a fantasy, no one can come to your turf, it does not exist. Your claims don't exist. You have no empirical data to support your claims. Your claim is nonsense.

Rogue operations don't get their hands on before-market cruise missiles, broadcast fake jets on national T.V, ensure silence and cooperation witl Anthrax from Fort Detrick and then launch long-planned invasions to force Pax Americana down the world's throat.

Spreading lies about a missile not in inventory on 911; what is that called? You never heard of Occam's razor? Are you the anti-Occam's razor?
Are you shooting for a new principle, Steve De'ak razor, which states, no fantasy is too stupid, no fantasy is too disrespectful, to be pushed as a bias against science, and hate of other people.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf
Do you use empirical data? no

The FDR found in the crater. You ignore what you want, empirical data, and you make up lies based on a missile not in inventory. Double fail.

Do you use empirical data? no
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf
RADAR data proves Flight 93, a 757 made the crater. Do you use reality based data. No, you make up an idiotic fantasy with two missiles, not in inventory on 911.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-8U4nS-vQg
What about this video. Did you know your missiles will not do the crater. And how do your missiles deliver 50,000 pounds of fuel? Or tons of aircraft parts? How does your missile carry over 100,000 pounds?
Can you comment on the empirical data? no

The FDR? Do you do science? no

 

[MarkCorrigan]

1. They found body parts that were identified by DNA as being the passengers on the plane. They found identifiable plane parts including the black box.

2. That doesn't answer my question in the slightest. Flight 93 and the passengers on board went missing. Whatever hit in Shanksville, flight 93 is missing. Where did it go?

 

[The Big Dog]

It wasn't put there fraudulently, it was put there by mistake, but even so if art imitates life, you'd think they would have scattered jet parts around to make it look more like what you're trying to describe. But they didn't, did they? They tried to match the scene with the other images of the crater already available in the public domain.

NOW that is desperate! hee hee! Of course, you were the guy who posted a picture of plane debris to prove there was no debris there, that was a *********** hoot!

As for art imitating life, my favorite historical fact from the movies is how everyone in history had great *********** teeth.

What is yours?

 

[NoahFence]

As for art imitating life, my favorite historical fact from the movies is how everyone in history had great *********** teeth.

I dunno, I always thought Han making the Kessel run in under 10 parsecs was pretty accurate.

 

[yankee451]

1. They found body parts that were identified by DNA as being the passengers on the plane. They found identifiable plane parts including the black box.

2. That doesn't answer my question in the slightest. Flight 93 and the passengers on board went missing. Whatever hit in Shanksville, flight 93 is missing. Where did it go?

But missiles did it remember? The damage evidence, etc.