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
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?
[edit on 6-10-2009 by Rewey]
[edit on 6-10-2009 by Rewey]