Shanksville Deconstructed - Part One...

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Shanksville Deconstructed - Part One...

The events surrounding the alleged demise of Flight 93 in a field at Shanksville have led to endless debate on numerous internet sites. Some people hinge their entire opinion on whether or not to believe the ‘Official Story’ of 9/11 around whether they believe Flight 93 was rolled onto its back by terrorist hijackers and plunged into the ground, or whether something else unfolded.

I believe that the debate surrounding this element of the 9/11 events is based on having many, many points of conjecture arise, some of which can be explained away, some of which that can’t. I believe that many people base their opinion on the demise of Flight 93 on the picture ‘as a whole’. A ‘what seems to fit best’ approach.

In an attempt to provide some clarity on the demise of Flight 93, I will aim to ‘deconstruct’ the event into each individual element which arises as a basis for debate. This thread comprises Part One. Each successive part will look at a new specific element. Once a concrete answer for each of these elements is compiled, I believe people will be able to appreciate each side of the debate, and come to a more informed conclusion about this part of the 9/11 tragedy.

I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IF POSTERS COULD REMAIN ON TOPIC FOR THESE THREADS IF THEY WISH TO CONTRIBUTE, AND ADDRESS ONLY THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE OP.


For Part One, I will be examining the photo below:



Below I have added a red horizontal line to demonstrate my estimation of where the natural ground level would have been prior to the alleged impact, based on the ground levels on either side of the crater. The vertical red line demonstrates my estimation of the corresponding point below this natural ground level, thereby showing the approximate depth of the crater. The green lines show the new ground slope inside the crater, which shows the effect the alleged impact had with the natural ground level, and helps demonstrate the width of the crater.



The point of debate which arises for this thread is the apparently undisturbed grass inside the alleged crater. It is generally agreed that this part of the crater is one of the ‘wing imprints’. It is important to remember that the crater is only 50-odd feet long. The plane, from wing tip to wing tip, is over 124 feet. Therefore this grass would not have been struck by the thinner, lighter portion at the ends of the wings, but by the leading edge of the wing closest to the cabin, where the wings are widest.

Forgetting the lack of fire damage (this will be raised in another thread), the question arises: How could grass, which was allegedly struck by Flight 93 plunging into the ground remain undisturbed, and remain growing vertically, even on the newly-formed slopes of the impact crater?

If these slopes could ONLY have been caused by the alleged impact of Flight 93, why is the grass still growing undisturbed?

To quote CameronFox from another thread [here...]:


Originally posted by CameronFox
First of all. Did you happen to calculate the kinetic energy involved with the impact of Flight 93?

Flight 93 had a mass of 100,000Kg
It is traveling at 255 meters per second

If you do the math, you will see that the kinetic energy was equal too about 1484 pounds of TNT.


Also to keep in mind, Flight 93 per the FDR that was found at the crash scene was reported as traveling at 580 mph (504 kts), or 850 feet per second, every bit as fast as a .45 round. So you have a 757 that impacted the ground as fast as a bullet fired from a .45 pistol. Such an impact into soft earth will twist and deform a solid lead .45 round. Now imagine that .45 round is actually a light frame covered with a thin aluminum skin.


If this crater was impacted with the kinetic energy equivalent of about 1484 pounds of TNT, the question becomes even more pertinent: How could grass, which was allegedly struck by Flight 93 plunging into the ground, with the kinetic equivalent of 1484 pounds of TNT, remain undisturbed, and remain growing vertically, even on the newly-formed slopes of the impact crater?


Rewey


[edit on 6-10-2009 by Rewey]

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Rewey]




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Rewey, can you add the link to Cameron's quote? I think that I know which thread it was from so I could probably find it if you don't get to it in a hurry.

With the link there, it might help some official government story believers understand that Cameron actually typed what he did.

Thanks, mate.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Hi Rewey,
I like your approach! I think it's important to be able to look at everything separately and say 'yay' or 'nay', as I feel that each part has to be able to stand up on it's own to be used as 'conclusive' evidence. There have been and continue to be alot of emotions being stirred with this event and objective discussion needs to be had. Too much is tied up in the big picture rather than the separate parts being analysed. We definately need to debate each element in it's own right.

While I don't support the official story, I don't want to believe that something makes sense just because I want it to.

I don't really have anything else to add as I am not by no means an expert in any of the fields to do with 9/11. But I just wanted to say, good job, and I hope we can get some more discussion happening
S&F!



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Rewey, can you add the link to Cameron's quote? I think that I know which thread it was from so I could probably find it if you don't get to it in a hurry.


Good idea - I've added it to the OP...

Rewey



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   
D'oh! Double post...

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Honestly, it's always looked like a hastily done cover-job. Almost like a missle impact crater or something, meant to emulate a crash site, albeit poorly. Just doesn't at all look like a plane crashed there. I'd believe something like a Lear Jet...but not a large passenger airliner. There's just not enough debris. Hardly any, from what I've seen. But I guess I'd have to have been there.

I'm kinda on the fence. Something has never felt right about flight 93 to me.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


This is a trick question, right? The reason the grass in the "impact crater" is not effected is that it is not in the impact zone. It is in the foreground. Your line drawings are off a little bit. Well, actually, quite a lot.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Maybe the plane hit there but bounced so that the parts landed miles away. Didn't they find parts miles away from the crash? That would explain why there were only a few parts in the crater and would be totally consistent with the government's and Hollywood's explanation of the event.

Brave passengers tried to take over the plane, which was totally unshotat by pursuit fighters and the plane crashed in Shanksville on the site of this photo but then bounced so that parts were found miles away.

See? That would be totally consistent with what the government and Hollywood said and also be a first in history, like the building collapses in New York. See? That would make the whole story completely consistent. Historically unprecedented events happening at all three sites. See?

And nothing makes sense at the Pentagon either. That would be totally consistent. See?

The problem with the truthers is that they have no imagazination. They can't think. See?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Maybe the plane hit there but bounced so that the parts landed miles away. Didn't they find parts miles away from the crash? That would explain why there were only a few parts in the crater and would be totally consistent with the government's and Hollywood's explanation of the event.

Brave passengers tried to take over the plane, which was totally unshotat by pursuit fighters and the plane crashed in Shanksville on the site of this photo but then bounced so that parts were found miles away.

See? That would be totally consistent with what the government and Hollywood said and also be a first in history, like the building collapses in New York. See? That would make the whole story completely consistent. Historically unprecedented events happening at all three sites. See?

And nothing makes sense at the Pentagon either. That would be totally consistent. See?

The problem with the truthers is that they have no imagazination. They can't think. See?


Yeah, doesn't Hollywood and Washington know that when planes hit the ground at 65% of the speed of sound they always form nice neat little piles of debris, with all the serial numbers facing out? They should also know that the first order of business at any plane crash is immeadiately go about photographing every piece of debris and all body parts and carefully catalouge them and then qucikly post all of the material on the internet so that it can be double checked by the general public. Oh, and I forgot about the SOP that requires the government to immeadiately surrender the site to all and any interested parties that may want to comb through the wreckage because they sure don't want anybody later to doubt that a plane crashed there and as we all know that every last person who draws a government paycheck is a pathological liar and mass murderer!!



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Playing devil's avocado, the grass that's still standing vertically does appear to be outside of the charred impact zone, so I'm not sure if examining this image is going to provide any concrete answers.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
All right, let me answer your question with a question- Why on *Earth* woudl the gov't conspirators waste their time faking a crash site out in the middle of nowhere, and then turn around and cover up the fake crash site they made out in the middle of nowhere? No, actually, I take that back, 'cause I have a better one- why the heck would they even waste their time making a fake crash site in the middle of nowhere that serves no purpose to begin with?

It was a real and genuine crash site, dude. They're not showing you what the entire crash site looks like and the reason why is obvious- 90% of the images contain scenes of former passengers turned into jelly and/or turned inside out. It's the same reason why they always withhold photos of every OTHER crash site. If you're attempting to play-pretend being a crash site forensics expert, it'd be your obligation to know that before you even posted this bit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to humiliate you. I'm here to point out that these damned fool conspiracy web sites you're getting all this from are feeding you rubbish to get you all paranoid so that you'd buy the junk they're selling. You yourself are just the victim in all this.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Good Thread S&F!
Moving on to the photos it seems to be shoot down to me,at least the storyline of the "uprising" of the passengers never rang true.It's far easier to sell this bill of goods to the general public rather than come out and admit to issuing a shoot-down order on a plane full of civilians.



PS:GoodOlDave if being on sites like this is such a waste of time then why continue to post here? oh, right you and the other debunkers are here to "save us."



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mike dangerously
Good Thread S&F!
Moving on to the photos it seems to be shoot down to me,at least the storyline of the "uprising" of the passengers never rang true.It's far easier to sell this bill of goods to the general public rather than come out and admit to issuing a shoot-down order on a plane full of civilians.



PS:GoodOlDave if being on sites like this is such a waste of time then why continue to post here? oh, right you and the other debunkers are here to "save us."


What exactly "never rang true"? What would you have done in the same situation as the passengers?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by mike dangerously
Good Thread S&F!
Moving on to the photos it seems to be shoot down to me,at least the storyline of the "uprising" of the passengers never rang true.It's far easier to sell this bill of goods to the general public rather than come out and admit to issuing a shoot-down order on a plane full of civilians.



PS:GoodOlDave if being on sites like this is such a waste of time then why continue to post here? oh, right you and the other debunkers are here to "save us."


What exactly "never rang true"? What would you have done in the same situation as the passengers?
I believe they were shot down they never had the chance to take full control of the plane because by that time the order was issued and they were taken down by the USAF.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mark_Amy
Playing devil's avocado, the grass that's still standing vertically does appear to be outside of the charred impact zone, so I'm not sure if examining this image is going to provide any concrete answers.



I disagree. Measuring the car and the road width next to the car, and carrying the measurement down to the bridge area, I estimate the road width to be about 20 feet.

Overhead of Shanksville crater -Official trial photo

Measuring the official crater from the dark area on the left to the far right indentation, I come up with about 80 feet. So half of the difference of a 757 wing would leave it sticking 22 feet out in the area the OP is concerned with.

It seems that 1484 pounds of kinetic energy should have really smushed those weeds. But they look like none of the 1st responders never even stepped on them. And where are the signs of jet fuel? The wing tanks are emptied last and extend out further in each wing into the outboard 22 feet. When the fuel bladders burst at impact, where did all the jet fuel go? Jet fuel kills weeds and grass and burning jet fuel burns weeds and grass. But no sign of either event happening. And the ground itself does not look like it was impacted by a rounded leading edge wing surface does it?


[edit on 6-10-2009 by HennyPen]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   




The point of debate which arises for this thread is the apparently undisturbed grass inside the alleged crater. It is generally agreed that this part of the crater is one of the ‘wing imprints’. It is important to remember that the crater is only 50-odd feet long. The plane, from wing tip to wing tip, is over 124 feet. Therefore this grass would not have been struck by the thinner, lighter portion at the ends of the wings, but by the leading edge of the wing closest to the cabin, where the wings are widest.


There is a video, embedded below, which alleges that the gouge attributed to the wings of the aircraft was actually there before 9/11 and can be seen in an old USGS satellite photo. The video presenter says that what crater was created on the day is consistent with the sort of craters made by surface to ground missiles.




[edit on 6-10-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right, let me answer your question with a question- Why on *Earth* woudl the gov't conspirators waste their time faking a crash site out in the middle of nowhere, and then turn around and cover up the fake crash site they made out in the middle of nowhere? No, actually, I take that back, 'cause I have a better one- why the heck would they even waste their time making a fake crash site in the middle of nowhere that serves no purpose to begin with?


Sorry, but this is diversionary, as it does not address the question in the OP. Relax - I will deal with this in another part. I did politely ask that posters deal with just what is raised in each OP, otherwise this will just become another rambling thread, and will not achieve what I hope to do with these threads, which is to address each element individually.

Is that just another way of saying you have no idea how the grass could remain undisturbed inside the alleged impact crater?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
There is a video, embedded below, which alleges that the gouge attributed to the wings of the aircraft was actually there before 9/11 and can be seen in an old USGS satellite photo.


Sorry, but this has been disproven a number of times. I thought the same until I examined it more closely...



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Rewey
 


This is a trick question, right? The reason the grass in the "impact crater" is not effected is that it is not in the impact zone. It is in the foreground. Your line drawings are off a little bit. Well, actually, quite a lot.


I believe you're absolutely wrong here.

I've zoomed in here and circled a patch of grass which is clearly inside the alleged crater, RIGHT NEXT to the blackened debris/rubble. Also, the arrow points to the stem of some brush which is also clearly inside the alleged crater. It is merely leaning to one side, but not snapped or broken. Is that the result of 1484 pounds of TNT? Brush is merely bent over, but not broken, snapped or burnt?



Here is the same image in negative. This shows the location of the circled grass and the unbroken scrub more clearly, as it appears as a black line over a light background...



Both are clearly inside the crater. Remember - according to the 'Official Story', the slopes inside this crater can only have been caused by the impact of Flight 93, so anything growing on these slopes must have survived the impact of the plane...

Rewey

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by HennyPen
 





Measuring the official crater from the dark area on the left to the far right indentation, I come up with about 80 feet. So half of the difference of a 757 wing would leave it sticking 22 feet out in the area the OP is concerned with.


Wing sticking out of ground??? I see you are a crack aircraft accident
investigator - Been watching Wiley Coyote toons lately ....

At the speed United 93 hit, estimated 580 mph. the plane would have been
smashed into small fragments with some larger pieces. The instant
it touched ground would have been reduced to "metallic confetti"

According to Wallace Miller, the local coroner, reported that the nose section broke off on impact and slammed into the tree line beyond the crater.



People who were early to the scene didn't know what to expect. While some people were impressed by how small the crater was, others were impressed by how large it was.] Reporter Jon Meyer, WJAC-TV, Johnstown: "There was a spot at the end where the emergency crews were gathering. I could see that it was smoking and burning a little bit. So I ran as fast as I could towards that spot. I ran right up to the crater. I was standing a few feet away, looking down into it. I was overwhelmed by the crater's depth and size, but there was nothing that I could identify as having been an airplane, except that there was this incredibly strong smell of jet fuel


Reason grass around FRONT of the crater is not burned (as shown in your
pictures) is that the fuel load would have been projected forward of
the impact point before igniting in massive fireball

Many of the trees along the tree line were burned by the fuel fireball





top topics
 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum