The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

Originally posted by IvanZana
The crater is similar to a bomb or missile.

The crater is smaller the Paynes Stwearts small Learjet that hit the ground at a seep angle like Flight 93.

So how does a big 757 make a smaller crater then a small Learjet?

IvanZana makes an excellent point - starred!

40° != 90°

Cue fuel test crash gone wrong, and note the behavior of the fuselage during said crash:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Note also that the aircraft was a full-size 707 kitted out to be remote controlled. The bottom line is there was a slight issue with control due to the delays in the video transmission used by the pilot. In the end, it resulted in pilot induced oscillations, and the aircraft didn't crash as anticipated.

The metal protrusions on the ground were designed to rip straight through the engines, but instead they ripped through the wing sections.

The fireball was never meant to occur - they realized about 1 second after impact that the fuel didn't work. The experiment was abandoned.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

So how does a big 757 make a smaller crater then a small Learjet?

Photos? Interesting to say the least. The Lear Jet was also a glider at impact, whereas the 757 was deliberately crashed with power.

EDIT:

So how could the soft ground at shanksville be soft enough to completely burry a plane while at the same time hard enough to transfer the impact energy to the seismic equipment. But...The Pentagon ground is hard enough to hold up an entire building but not hard enough to transfer seismic energy?

Actually - I remember reading somewhere that seismic waves travel more powerfully through soft ground than say bedrock. I'm unsure if whether they'd travel faster (?) through this material, but it does very much transmit seismic waves.

The more I think about the Pentagon crash and the lack of *discernible* seismic records, the more I can't make it add up.

At this point I have to admit that the existence of Flight 93 in seismic records is interesting, and is much closer to physical proof of its existence. I would have been less surprised if (like the Pentagon) nothing was recorded.

A couple of questions regarding seismic records:

* Do you get different signatures for the same event if it occurs in different materials (allowing for the differences in transmission of those materials)?

* For a given release of energy, is it reasonable to presume similar strength recordings at a given distance?

* Is it possible for sites to be in a geological shadow, and not necessarily due to the relative positions of the occurrence and the recording?

* Is anyone here able to verify the findings of the LDEO, and that the seismic records do indeed show the signature of an aircraft impact, rather than that of an explosion caused by HE for example? I'm unsure how likely LDEO are to ... not tell the truth ... or for the report to be tampered with.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Photos? Interesting to say the least. The Lear Jet was also a glider at impact, whereas the 757 was deliberately crashed with power.

Kind of like Flight 800 was under ppwer and hit the water at several hundred miles an hour but the Navy still found enough pieces to do a reconstruction.

Mirageofdeceit, for a lot of answers, start reading on page 8 of my thread named :
I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007).
www.abovetopsecret.com...
(Don't forget to read the whole thread after the following hints of mine.)

Better start to read this post of mine first,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

then read through to my last post on the last page 11, and read carefully my last bolded text in that excerpt.
Which will let you understand that a small amount of explosives do a much better job at exciting the soil and/or bedrock in between the event point and the seismic recording point, than the subsequent destructive effects the explosives cause.
EXACTLY what can be observed in the WTC 7 seismic record.

Then re-consider reading very carefully this next post of mine on page 8 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

where you will find, lo and behold, a seismogram published by prof Wallace on 12 Sept 2001, one day later, with a time in it, which he later overwrote with a yellow band :


Seismogram 1: Recording of energy from the collision of Flight 77 with the Pentagon at USGS seismic station CBN. The energy is predominately surface wave energy.

He later retracted this event. Strange, ain't it.

Then read my following posts at page 8 about some seismic recordings of quite forceful explosions.
Like the Russian Kursk submarine explosion, and the New Mexico pipeline explosion.
You can observe, that an explosion has a sudden, steep onset.

I always have asked myself, why we have so many witness reports of rows of smaller explosions, and then 3 huge explosions.
Perhaps the planners were trying to hide the big sudden steep ones with a few smaller ones in front of the seismic records, to camouflage the big ones as building failures.

See for examples of explosions and my thoughts of comparing them to 9/11 events this excerpt from page 8 of mine :

Seismic recordings at ARCESS from the second, larger explosion. The three components correspond to the three directions of ground motion. Although the explosion was a impulsive event the seismograms are complex due to the propagation of the seismic waves through the earth. The first arriving seismic phase is Pn followed by Pg.

TRANSLATION for non-seismologists: This figure shows three seismograms which are recording the ground shaking from the larger of the explosions. The ground moves in three dimensions, hence three components. The vertical component is up-down; the radial is horizontal shaking along a direction between the explosion source and the recording station; the transverse component shows horizontal shaking which is perpendicular to the radial direction. The shaking is complex due to the waves traveling through the Earth, although the ratio of the vertical to transverse shaking tells us that it was an explosion not an earthquake.

First observation based on the last sentence : why did we never see any Transverse seismograms from the WTC 9/11 events ?
So we can compare them to the vertical ones and find any signs of explosion-caused ground movements!

As you can see in these 3 seismograms, it seems like the vertical component graph (ARA0-Vertical) is the one which shows the best method of separation of those independent signals Pn, Pg and Lg.
First impression : it looks quite comparable with the WTC 7 collapse seismogram, which was also recorded as the vertical component, with a very distinct pass-band filtering, namely 0.6535 Hz.

Remember however, all three WTC collapses were "small"explosions mixed in with much "louder" subsequent gravitational collapses.
Wallace is presenting here pure explosions and their ground shaking, recorded at seismic stations.

Next, a note about the Pentagon :
Many ear and eyewitnesses in the officially published lists of them, speak about ground shaking and books falling from shelfs at time of impact, those shelfs were km's away, btw.
Either these witnesses lie, or the seismologists working for the government, lie. Better stated, the government lies all the time these days, and those who get their pay checks from them, need to follow foot.
Or face the consequences .

Regarding soft soil at the Pentagon and in Shanksville :
Imagen, dropping a stone near a seismograph from several meters high.
First on the concrete floor, secondly on a thick, WET sponge on that floor.
Try to visualize how the seismograph will record each event.

Btw, ever read about high-speed water skiing, and that the water act as concrete in case of a crash of the skier?
How would soft, muddy, wet soil from a former strip-mine react on a very-high-speed perpendicular impact of a passenger airliner? And transfer that impact energy to the underlaying bedrock, and subsequently to the seismographs?

Try to make an educated guess.

Regarding soft soil at the Pentagon and in Shanksville :
Imagen, dropping a stone near a seismograph from several meters high.
First on the concrete floor, secondly on a thick, WET sponge on that floor.
Try to visualize how the seismograph will record each event.

Btw, ever read about high-speed water skiing, and that the water act as concrete in case of a crash of the skier?
How would soft, muddy, wet soil from a former strip-mine react on a very-high-speed perpendicular impact of a passenger airliner? And transfer that impact energy to the underlaying bedrock, and subsequently to the seismographs?

Try to make an educated guess.

I'll tackle these now, and shall read the links. I think I've read them before, but now I'm in a position to actually understand it I think.

Concrete: near instantaneous transfer of energy to the seismograph.

WET sponge: longer recording of a lesser impact (sponge absorbs some of the energy)?

I understand what you're saying regarding the water-skiing. In the context of Shanksville, it would be similar?

Regarding the Pentagon: are you saying the grounds composition lends itself to lesser transfer of energy, or greater? I'm suspecting lesser (refer to wet sponge).

Thanks for the info regarding ratios of vertical vs. traverse! I appreciated that the earth moved in 3D and had decided that that is what the various graphs were plotting. Thanks for the clarification on the axis, too.

Your point regarding missing axis is duly noted. I'm looking forward to reading your other posts/threads.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Mirageofdeceit : A couple of questions regarding seismic records:

1* Do you get different signatures for the same event if it occurs in different materials (allowing for the differences in transmission of those materials)?

2* For a given release of energy, is it reasonable to presume similar strength recordings at a given distance?

3* Is it possible for sites to be in a geological shadow, and not necessarily due to the relative positions of the occurrence and the recording?

4* Is anyone here able to verify the findings of the LDEO, and that the seismic records do indeed show the signature of an aircraft impact, rather than that of an explosion caused by HE for example? I'm unsure how likely LDEO are to ... not tell the truth ... or for the report to be tampered with.

1* Yes, see all the different signatures in the dr Kim reports of one and the same event, but registered at different seismic stations, and distances, traveling through different soils and bedrocks on their way to all kinds of different positions. Links in my above 11 pages btw.

2* No, it's not only depending on distance, but also position of the recorder.
Different positions will have different soils to travel through, which influence all kinds of effects at the seismographs.

3* Yes, for example the Hudson River water mass will be a sort of barrier unlike the solely Northern New York State bedrock.
Different types of bedrock, like other geological mountain ridges or rifts and cracks in the bedrock, will influence and differentiate seismic signals travel times.
Seismologists compare many already known events, and even "self inflicted" signals like test explosions in drilled holes, with new, unknown events.
That way they have a record of many seismic events recorded at a specific station, which they use as reference to a new event. They thus know, how fast (km/sec) the signals travel through known geological formations on their way to all their seismographs positions.

4* Like I said in my thesis, there have been efforts by NIST and LDEO to meet each-others records in common grounds.
NIST and LDEO added seconds, after years of opposition to their original reported event times. The interesting effect was, that that correcting even more strengthened my thesis.

Tampering of evidence is to be expected, since both institutions get their funds from the present politicians in power, through governmental funding.
NIST's and LDEO's directors were changed and Bushist's were replaced in those positions of power to influence the final reports.
If you look at the dates the reports were finally created, and then edited however again, you see several days difference.
Normally scientific reports are written, then edited multiple times, on a personal computer, and then redacted by proof readers, and then handed out to be created in their factual form, to another computer at the library for instance.
These reports are redacted again, a few days later.
Guess by who? To change what?

The biggest latest "smoking gun" at the Flight 93 scene is in my opinion, the videoed testimony by CIT or Pilots for Truth of that lady driving in her van near the later 93 crash site, who saw through her windshield, a totally smooth and very small white airplane passing in front of her, in a very low and slow trajectory, lifting up to pass a line of trees, and then disappeared and a few seconds later the explosion followed, which later turned out to be the crash site.

That hints strongly to a Predator type of UAV, possibly armed with Hellfire missiles.

I saw her expression of total terror on her face when recalling that event, and she broke out in tears, probably still realizing that the presence of such a low flying small plane (UAV) at the crash site has very grave implications.

It strongly suggests military deception on its way at that moment.

Since when can the military launch a slow UAV (armed or not) when they were clearly not capable to launch any effective jet fighters during all 9/11 events.
It shouts out loud, FOREKNOWLEDGE and PLANNING.

Thus the only question left is, was it a full military deception, covered by all Pentagon top brass, or was it a military or CIA faction gone rogue?

Remember, it was the CIA which brought the first armed Predators on the playing field, already far before 9/11.
For all kinds of info on UAV's, the CIA and military use of them, Google for the words " Attack of the Killer Robot Jetplanes 911.htm ".
Use the Archive.org website if needed.

I saw her expression of total terror on her face when recalling that event, and she broke out in tears, probably still realizing that the presence of such a low flying small plane (UAV) at the crash site has very grave implications.

It strongly suggests military deception on its way at that moment.

Yes - I saw that. I find it highly unlikely that was "put on". I've got a lot of respect for her, stepping forward to speak about it. I'd be thinking twice over the possible repercussions of doing so.

I'm even thinking twice about writing a simple FOIA request!!

Would I be correct in thinking that given the lack of seismic data, that we couldn't accurately determine a cause for the record? In any given axis, do they behave differently to the other axis, generally?

Just thinking about what was written above: I'd expect an explosion type event to have (as you say) a very steep rise time and of very short duration, whereas something like an airliner crash would have a (relatively) relaxed entry into an extended record (see WTC collapse).

By looking at the period of the record, and comparing this to a scenario whereby it takes say 2 seconds for the aircraft to crash and come to a complete stop, do you think we could accurately determine what we should see, vs. what we do see?

Maybe it's impossible, but given the limited data, I'm just wondering if we could work another angle, to try and calculate a probability of it being x cause?

This is about as close to physical data as it gets I think, and we need to do our best to determine the cause of the seismic waves.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

At the bottom of that page 8, you'll find two different seismograms for the explosions at the Kursk submarine.
One white one shows a steep rise from background noise, the other yellow one with the three graphs show very much WTC-like seismograms, which look very different than the first, steep starting one.
The white graph is in hundreds of a second timescale, the yellow ones in seconds. That's a factor 100 difference.

The yellow Kursk explosion graphs are damn comparable to the WTC collapse graphs. Both in a seconds timescale.

I find it also very fishy, that we have not been presented with a seismic record of the timescale, covering the Pentagon wedge wing collapse.

That would be a very logical thing to do, but has NEVER been published.

In case we could get it in public hand, we could compare that graph to the WTC ones.
And search back in time, when that segment collapse was recorded, to the proposed official attack time, and see what we can find.
Now we have no reference point in time, since we seriously start to doubt the official timelines offered by docile scientists.

The white graph is in hundreds of a second timescale, the yellow ones in seconds. That's a factor 100 difference.

Whilst the time-scale alters, does the relative amplitude (as plotted) remain the same?

I noticed on the seismic records of WTC7 particularly, that when the time-scale was altered, so too was the amplitude (I'm sure it was the same data and not another axis).

[edit on 22-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by Kulturcidist


As the history of actual conspiracies has shown us - something always leaks.

everytime i hear that, i wait, and wait for some sort of...anything that backs that up. first of all, there were conspiracies that have been carried out successfully. either a, eventually time unravelled or...and this is a shocker...ready...it was pulled off successfully with NOONE saying a word. see, it is a nice little thing to say to conspiracy nuts to try to knock them off their horse but it really says nothing nor provides any reason for its being said anyway. you cannot prove it one way or the other.

As you can see in these pictures, flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville even as they dug 15 plus feet down, no parts were found.




[edit on 22-7-2008 by IvanZana]

As the history of actual conspiracies has shown us - something always leaks.

GW is a conspiracy, but everyone is falling for it anyway.

Everyone knows governments lie (now more than ever I think).

Back on topic...

As you can see in these pictures, flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville even as they dug 15 plus feet down, no parts were found.

They airbrushed the parts out. Didn't you know?

For all the metal that should have been recovered, just how many skips of metallic looking debris did they actually take away?

[edit on 22-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by IvanZana


This is a very respectful question, IvanZana, based on your post of 23 Jul 2008 at 00:18 Eastern Daylight Time.

You show three photos that 'prove' that nothing crashed in Shanksville, PA, on 11 Sep 2001.


Please, indulge me, and explain exactly how those three pictures 'prove' any of your assertions.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by IvanZana

 

You show three photos that 'prove' that nothing crashed in Shanksville, PA, on 11 Sep 2001.


Please, indulge me, and explain exactly how those three pictures 'prove' any of your assertions.

1. NO WEED! You explain exactly how those three pictures prove a plane crashed in Shanskville.! (because one didnt this should be entertaining).

2. Answer Mirageofdeceit's questions. Throat yogurt got schooled here so have you weed . Stop asking the same stupid questions pretending that we didnt prove that no plane crashed in Shanksville earlier in this thread.

reply to post by IvanZana


Illogical, and fallacious arguing, sorry Ivan.

I certainly would not be expected by any reasoned individual to attempt to use YOUR photos to, as you say 'prove' that a B757 crashed into the area at Shanksville, PA, on 11 Sep 2001.

Do you see? The burden of proof is on YOU!!!! YOU make the claims, I ask for supporting evidence, YOU just repeat the same drivel. YOU ignore, repeatedly, my questions regarding the Flight Recorders. Your blanket answer: 'faked!'.

Well, OK....just suppose for a moment, the Flight Recorder data (both of them) were 'faked'....just suppose, that is your assertion. WHERE is your proof of that assertion??

Sorry, it is not a valid discussion/argument if one person posts pictures that have no real reference, and THEN asks the opposition to use THOSE PICTURES as part of the opposing argument!!!! It is not a discussion, it is a travesty of a guise of an argument.

All I asked, on record, was a very respectful question: How do those three pictures support your claim? Instead of answering, you attacked.

I hope the tactics of Ivan are very clear, by now, for all to see.

Weed, everytime you get schooled here you rant and rave and avoid the questions. You and 2 others are the only ones having a hard time with the information.

Answer the questions.



The burnden of proof is on the people who said a plane crashed in Shanksville and the people who aid and play accesory to the conspiracy by covering it up to prove it happened.

All the real world evidence says no boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville.

The crater was made by either a bomb or missile but not a plane.

Thanks for coming out. Btw, do you think you rants and ignorant questions is changing anyones minds? I rarely read past the 2nd page anyways.

Dble post


[edit on 23-7-2008 by IvanZana]