Shanksville Deconstructed - Part One...

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
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 ....


I think you've misunderstood what HennyPen was saying.

She's not trying to say that there would be remnants of wings sticking out of the ground after the alleged impact. She's saying that if you take the length of the crater, and the width of the plane from wing tip to wing tip, the crater is not long enough... ie. if you line the plane and the crater up, the wings 'stick out' a certain distance on each side.

In other words, grass at the ends of the 'wing imprints' would have also been struck by the wings, although this doesn't appear to be the case...

Rewey




posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


Where the hell is this "official story" written so that we can all see it? And really, bent grass and shrubs? What are you - some kind of animal tracker? You think grass can't grow that way? How do you know that the grass wasn't bent before the photo was taken by persons at the scene trying to put out any residual fires? That is a fire truck in the background you know. Please prove that there is no other cause to the position or shape of that vegetation.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Maybe it's time we moved onto Shanksville Deconstructed - Part Two...



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Originally posted by thedman
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 ....


I think you've misunderstood what HennyPen was saying.

She's not trying to say that there would be remnants of wings sticking out of the ground after the alleged impact. She's saying that if you take the length of the crater, and the width of the plane from wing tip to wing tip, the crater is not long enough... ie. if you line the plane and the crater up, the wings 'stick out' a certain distance on each side.

In other words, grass at the ends of the 'wing imprints' would have also been struck by the wings, although this doesn't appear to be the case...

Rewey


Please bear in mind the swept wing configuration of the plane and think about how that would have interacted with the ground surface.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
quote]

Sorry, but this is diversionary, as it does not address the question in the OP.


Sorry, but yes, it does. If the Shanksville site is shown to have been a legitimate crash site...or more to the point I was making, it would be completely absurd for anyone to ever want to make a fake crash site at Shanksville...then it makes the question on possiblly suspicious details entirely moot becuase it's not suspicious, regardless of how wierd it may seem to you.


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


I suppose you could say that, but the real point I was making is that just becuase we don't know how the grass remained undisturbed it in no way means there's anythign suspicious about it. It simply means we don't know all the details to understand why.

I don't fully understand how hydrogen bombs work, either, but I'm intellectually honest enough to know that there isn't any disinformation campaign to trick me into believing hydrogen bombs exist.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
If, as a poster noted above, the nose section broke off it would logically indicate that the plane must have hit the ground at an angle. If the plane hit absolutely on a vertical, the mass of the aircraft behind the nose would not allow it to 'break off.' If the nose broke off, then the aircraft went into the ground at an angle, which would also bring up the age old question..... "Where's the tail?"



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1
If, as a poster noted above, the nose section broke off it would logically indicate that the plane must have hit the ground at an angle. If the plane hit absolutely on a vertical, the mass of the aircraft behind the nose would not allow it to 'break off.' If the nose broke off, then the aircraft went into the ground at an angle, which would also bring up the age old question..... "Where's the tail?"



Age old question? Since when? The tail is in pieces on the ground at Shanksville. Well, now it is in storage at nearby site around Pittsburgh. Is there some rule that when a plane hits the ground at an angle greater than or less than 90 degrees the tail section of the plane only acts in one way? Where did this rule come from?



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Rewey
 

Where the hell is this "official story" written so that we can all see it?


Wow. Is that what this debate has come to? “What ‘Official Story’?”

Look, I’ll level with you, hooper. I’ve got a lot of respect for the arguments you’ve posted on a lot of threads around this site, but that one falls way short of your usual standards. For years OS supporters have bundled all of us ‘truthers’ into a basket (including ridiculous no-planers, and lasers from space people), and claimed we’re all reading from some ‘truther bible’. Now when someone questions the OS, your reply is “What ‘Official Story’?”



Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Rewey
 

You think grass can't grow that way? How do you know that the grass wasn't bent before the photo was taken...



Of course it can, but do you understand the irony of the point you’ve just raised? You’ve just supported the point raised in the OP. Let’s assume it DID grow that way. What you’re saying is that the impact of Flight 93, with the kinetic equivalent of 1484 pounds of TNT, left it EXACTLY as it was before the impact, as it had grown that way. I was actually suggesting it might have been at least bent over. In arguing that, you’re actually supporting the OP, which probably makes you sick to your stomach…

Look, I’ll explain the issue this way:

1. In numerous places, the ‘official story’ (and its supporters) has claimed that the ‘impact crater’ DID NOT EXIST prior to the impact of Flight 93.

2. Therefore, anything INSIDE the impact crater, which could only have been created by the impact of Flight 93, must have been subjected to the impact of the plane.

3. CameronFox calculated the impact of the plane as having the kinetic equivalent of 1484 pounds of TNT.

4. For light scrub and grass INSIDE the impact crater to have survived the impact of Flight 93, with the kinetic equivalent of 1484 pounds of TNT, is nonsensical.

That's the point of this thread in a nutshell.

Rewey



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Rewey

In other words, grass at the ends of the 'wing imprints' would have also been struck by the wings, although this doesn't appear to be the case...


Please bear in mind the swept wing configuration of the plane and think about how that would have interacted with the ground surface.


Did this plane have a similar 'swept wing configuration'?



I get the difference between a building and the ground, but remember - the 'official story' claims that the ground at Shanksville was 'soft, or loosely packed' (due to previous mining acitivities), to the point that much of Flight 93 buried itself (kind of like the side of the building)...

Rewey



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Badgered1
 





If, as a poster noted above, the nose section broke off it would logically indicate that the plane must have hit the ground at an angle. If the plane hit absolutely on a vertical, the mass of the aircraft behind the nose would not allow it to 'break off.' If the nose broke off, then the aircraft went into the ground at an angle, which would also bring up the age old question..... "Where's the tail?"


According to witnesses and Flight recorder Flight 93 struck ground
while upside down at angle of 40 deg

As for tail or more correct "empennage" - tail structures of aircraft
are lightly built structures of honeycomb composites. Only really
heavy pieces are the hydraulic jackscrews which operate the control
surfaces. The tail structure would have been fragmented on impact

You are not one of those conspiracy nutz crying "wheres the tail?"....



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

As for tail or more correct "empennage" - tail structures of aircraft
are lightly built structures of honeycomb composites. Only really
heavy pieces are the hydraulic jackscrews which operate the control
surfaces. The tail structure would have been fragmented on impact.


You mean like this one?



Only stirring, dman... no need to comment on that one... I get it...

Rewey



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
There was no plane crash in Shansville PA.


United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar
04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
Full Article Here

pilotsfor911truth.org...


I have not seen any one prove this information is a lie. So if this information is true then there was no plane crash period.

I believe a very small part of our government with the help of a very small loyal group from our miliatary and loyal to Dick Cheney, staged a false flag operation and I believe the FBI dump airplane bone yard scraps in a hole, to convince the media and the mass population that a plane crashed, that’s the evidences that I see.

Not one person on ATS has EVER been able to prove to me that flight UAL 93 crashed in Shanskville PA. I have not seen one piece of evidences that conclusively proves that the airplane debris belong to United 93.
The plane crash in Shanskville, PA lacks crash debris, bodies, airplane seats, luggage clothing. All you debunkers have is the word of the FBI just because the FBI said that the events at Shanskville happened a certain way, it doesn’t mean it’s true. The FBI has been caught lying repeatedly about the events of 911.


[edit on 7-10-2009 by impressme]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
There was no plane crash in Shansville PA.


Thanks for you input, impressme, but I believe this is going back to looking at the Shanksville event 'as a whole'.

This series of threads intends to focus on individual elements specifically. Anything to add about what is raised in the OP?

Rewey



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 



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?


It is not possible; this is just laughable at best! There would not be grass undisturbed or growing in the impact area period. What CameronFox gives as answer is his opinion nothing more.

Come on people use your common sense here. A third grader can figure this out, its call playing on your intelligence like the FBI finding all the hijackers DNA, laughable at best

I think you just proved that no airplane wings struck the ground obviously this airplane had no wings.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to humiliate you.


Then why do you do it?


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.


Just like the disinformationist web sites where some of the OS believers get their info so, they can go on pretending all this nonsense is true, just goes to show how ignorant and gullible they really are.


You yourself are just the victim in all this.


Since you have the answers to the OP and we are all to “paranoid” to think for our selves why don’t you answer the OP questions to why there is undisturbed grass where United 93 allegedly crashed. The grass in question is where the wings supposedly left the ground impression. Remember, the fuel is stored in the wings, and the weights of the engines are carried by the wings. Sometimes a little thing like this is just enough to prove that it is impossible for a plane to have crashed where the government says it did.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


Again, where is this "official story" with all these descriptive details that you are trying to disprove? The "official" dimensions of the crater, the "official" shape of the impact crater, the "official" account of how the plane behaved on impact? There is an official narrative about what happened on 9/11, however this level of detail is not included. So what are you basing your assumptions on?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Rewey

In other words, grass at the ends of the 'wing imprints' would have also been struck by the wings, although this doesn't appear to be the case...


Please bear in mind the swept wing configuration of the plane and think about how that would have interacted with the ground surface.


Did this plane have a similar 'swept wing configuration'?



I get the difference between a building and the ground, but remember - the 'official story' claims that the ground at Shanksville was 'soft, or loosely packed' (due to previous mining acitivities), to the point that much of Flight 93 buried itself (kind of like the side of the building)...

Rewey


Where is this official story that claims that most of Flight 93 embedded in the soil? Soft or loosely packed is wholly irrelevant at 500 plus miles per hour. It does not make any difference if the soil was 98% compacted or 75% compacted. Also, those are descriptions by reporters or to reporters from first responders. What the ground feels like underfoot to someone without any background in soils engineering, earthwork or geology and its actual compaction are two completely different things. Wet sand may feel very soft under foot, but is very, very resistant to compression.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Technically, what he's doing is creating a strawman.

*HE* estimates the size and slope of the hole, and a little later, it will become the "official story".

Then he'll quote something from a newspaper article about the soil compaction, and says it accurately represents the "official story".

And on and on.

It's a sign of the intelluctually bankrupt and/or delusional idiot.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Where is this official story that claims that most of Flight 93 embedded in the soil?


As I outlined above, the 'Official Story' is a collection of what is put forward by the media, the government spokespersons and government groups such as NIST, and supporters of the OS who post around internet forums like this.

This is exactly the same as the 'truth movement' being comprised of controlled demolition, lasers from space and no-planers, even though most people in the truth movement find these ideas nonsensical and absurd.

If you want to appreciate the ether that is the 'official story', simply look around the various threads and listen to what all the people on 'your side' of the argument are saying.


Originally posted by hooper
Also, those are descriptions by reporters or to reporters from first responders. What the ground feels like underfoot to someone without any background in soils engineering, earthwork or geology and its actual compaction are two completely different things. Wet sand may feel very soft under foot, but is very, very resistant to compression.


Believe me, I've done more research into the soil at Shanksville than anyone on ATS. You can read it here:

Shanksville soil

All I ask is that if you have comments to make on this, please do it via U2U, or please find the thread that was created specifically to discuss that document - I really do want THIS thread to remain on topic in order to achieve its objective...

Rewey



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
*HE* estimates the size and slope of the hole, and a little later, it will become the "official story".


If you disagree with what I've written, please feel free to add your own estimations or calculations. You're using a typical ad hominem attack - play the ball, not the man. But I guess you just find it easier to criticise others than to contribute something useful, or a new perspective... well done, genius...


Then he'll quote something from a newspaper article about the soil compaction, and says it accurately represents the "official story".


Acutally, I got off my butt and did my very own analysis of the Shanksville soil. You can download it in the post above. Tell me... have YOU ever actually contributed anything useful to the 9/11 debate which you've done by your own research, or do you just look for the next oppotunity to attack ad hominem?


Then he'll quote something from a newspaper article about the soil compaction, and says it accurately represents the "official story". It's a sign of the intelluctually bankrupt and/or delusional idiot.


Isn't that EXACTLY what you 'official story' supporters do? You find the writings of one nutcase like a John Lear or an Alex Jones, and say it accurately represents the "truth movement". How hypocritical can you be? Are you actually saying that every 'official story' supporter is "intellectually bankrupt and/or [a] delusional idiot"? Sounds like it...

Seriously, if that's all you have to contribute to this thread, go and troll somewhere else...

Rewey

[edit on 8-10-2009 by Rewey]





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join