Shanksville Deconstructed - Part Two...

Thanks for all those who contributed in Part One. You can follow it here.

Before we start Part Two, let me do some quick housekeeping:

SUPER-IMPORTANT NON-LEGAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS AN INTERNET FORUM BASED ON CONSPIRACY THEORIES, AND IN PARTICULAR THOSE SURROUNDING THE EVENTS OF 9/11. THESE SITES ARE CREATED FOR PEOPLE TO SHARE THEIR OPINIONS. IF THAT UPSETS YOU, THEN PERHAPS THIS IS NOT THE SITE FOR YOU. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD FIND A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAY, AND SLAP EACH ON THE BACK EVERY TIME ONE OF YOU TALKS. IF OTHER PEOPLE HAVING OPINIONS DOESN’T UPSET YOU, AND YOU CAN REMEMBER YOUR MANNERS, I’D BE HAPPY FOR YOU TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS THREAD.

There… that feels better.

For Part Two, I’ll be discussing direction, most notably that which can be deduced from the alleged crater.

Here is a photo which a number of people in other threads and sites are using to compare with the alleged Shanksville crash, pointing out the lack of large pieces of debris.

For the purpose of full disclosure, I’m led to believe this is the result of a fighter jet crashing, not a Boeing. However, as this photo was originally brought into the 9/11 debate by an ‘Official Story’ supporter, I will assume it’s OK if I refer to it as well. Further, as waypastvne posted a video of a crashing fighter jet in Part One of these threads, I’ll assume that it’s OK for me to do as well. Lastly, if you’re not happy with me using this photo, you can go to this online archive showing hundreds of photos of crashed planes which will show exactly the same thing.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fea8560acf9a.jpg[/atsimg]

With regards to direction, this photo shows a number of inconsistencies with the Shanksville site. Firstly, the impact clearly shows DIRECTION. You can tell from the spray of dirt/debris that something with momentum crashed here (generally moving from left to right). This is created by the force of the plane crashing, causing ejecta and debris to spray in the direction of the momentum.

Secondly, you can also tell that the crater in the middle is ALIGNED WITH THE PERCEIVED DIRECTION the plane would have been traveling. In other words, this (and all of the other plane crashes in the archive link above) shows a crater which is PARALLEL with the direction the plane was traveling in. Yet at Shanksville, the OPPOSITE is true – the crater left if PERPENDICULAR to the direction of the plane (which is why people refer to them as ‘wing imprints’).

Many ‘OS’ supporters claim this is perfectly natural, as Flight 93 hit the ground in a ‘nosedive’. But did it? In the traditional sense, no. As much as the ‘OS’ supporters like to claim that Flight 93 crashed in a nosedive, in reality it was only at 40º. The crater left behind certainly suggests that a plane landed at an angle almost perpendicular to the ground, but it’s important to remember that the official record notes the angle of impact at 40º to the ground.

Let’s see what that would look like:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d4f429775c7b.jpg[/atsimg]

The FDR data show that the plane was intact and its systems were operating normally before impact:

“Cabin pressure - NORMAL. Hydraulics - NORMAL. Cargo fire -
NORMAL. Smoke - NORMAL. Engines - RUNNING. Engine RPM
(N1) 70% . Fuel pressure - NORMAL. Engine vibration - LO. Wind
direction - WEST. Wind speed - 25 kts. Pitch angle - 40 deg down.
Airspeed - 500 kts. Heading - 180 deg. Roll angle - 150 deg right. AoA -
20 deg negative”.

So what does that mean for the momentum carried by the plane?

According to simple physics, an object traveling at an angle has a combination of vertical movement and horizontal movement. Flight 93 moving at 40º means that the plane had more SIDEWAYS (horizontal) momentum than it had VERTICAL momentum. We know this because the horizontal and vertical components of a force moving at an incline are calculated as the COS and SIN ratios of the angle of the incline. The following diagram shows this clearly:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3acc0a9264a0.jpg[/atsimg]

In simple terms, an object traveling at 45º will have the same vertical momentum as it does horizontal momentum (for those fans of trigonometry who want to prove this – the sin and cos ratios for 45º are the same).

As waypastvne correctly, and belatedly, pointed out in Part One, this is a GENERIC forces diagram. It is only being used here to demonstrate how forces are comprised of horizontal AND vertical components in very precise ratios (the sin and cos ratios). There were other forces acting on Flight 93.

The most commonly raised by the ‘OS’ supporters is the notion of the ‘inverted lift’ (regular lift created by the wings, although inverted as the plane is upside-down). Some would argue that this inverted lift would push Flight 93 further towards the ground, thus rendering the simple vector diagram above moot.

Although Flight 93 would have experienced this ‘inverted lift’, it is important to remember HOW lift is created. The mere presence of wings does not create lift, because lift is not a byproduct of wings. Lift is created by air moving above and beneath the wing surface at speed (and the different distance the air has to travel going above or going beneath). And what causes this air movement? The thousands of pounds of thrust created by the engines. So, yes, Flight 93 would have experienced ‘inverted lift’, but this is only due to the thousands of pounds of thrust moving the plane in a forward direction, further adding to the horizontal momentum. In other words, the ‘inverted lift’ does not change the fact that the plane had more horizontal momentum that vertical, as it is more than amply compensated by the thousands of pounds of forward thrust provided by the engines.

Continued...

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Rewey]

Continued...

According to the above diagram, a plane traveling at 40º to the ground (upside-down or not) is traveling with more HORIZONTAL momentum that VERTICAL. Yet the Shanksville crater shows no deep gouge running parallel with the direction of the plane caused by the nose and fuselage hitting the ground (well before the wings reach it).

‘Official Story’ supporters say that this forward momentum is demonstrated in other aspects of the crash. In Part One, it was raised that the reason for lack of burnt grass around the crater is that the fuel was thrown forward towards the trees on impact.

Originally posted by thedman
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

Others claim that all of the plane wreckage was scattered far off in the distance the plane was traveling.

So if the momentum carried by the plane was enough to throw the entire fuel load forward BEFORE it was ignited, and enough to throw the wreckage of the plane far into the distance, and if the plane had more horizontal momentum than vertical momentum, why is there no crater or mark left by the nose or fuselage of the plane in the DIRECTION the plane was traveling?

Rewey

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Rewey]

Originally posted by Rewey
Continued...

According to the above diagram, a plane traveling at 40º to the ground (upside-down or not) is traveling with more HORIZONTAL momentum that VERTICAL. Yet the Shanksville crater shows no deep gouge running parallel with the direction of the plane caused by the nose and fuselage hitting the ground (well before the wings reach it).

‘Official Story’ supporters say that this forward momentum is demonstrated in other aspects of the crash. In Part One, it was raised that the reason for lack of burnt grass around the crater is that the fuel was thrown forward towards the trees on impact.

Originally posted by thedman
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

Others claim that all of the plane wreckage was scattered far off in the distance the plane was traveling.

So if the momentum carried by the plane was enough to throw the entire fuel load forward BEFORE it was ignited, and enough to throw the wreckage of the plane far into the distance, and if the plane had more horizontal momentum than vertical momentum, why is there no crater or mark left by the nose or fuselage of the plane in the DIRECTION the plane was traveling?

Rewey

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Rewey]

Well, there is this big hole in the ground in the direction the plane was traveling - down. You're little force diagram is great if you are trying to figure how a ball may bounce, but not very good in predicting how a glass is going to shatter.

Originally posted by hooper
Well, there is this big hole in the ground in the direction the plane was traveling - down.

Please show me where a deep 45 degree hole is in that Shanksville field.

You're little force diagram is great if you are trying to figure how a ball may bounce, but not very good in predicting how a glass is going to shatter.

The funny thing is, the shallow crater looks like something hit and bounced of the ground -- like a ball -- rather than something hitting and shattering out in a fan shape was seen in the photo above of the real plane crash. Interesting.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
Well, there is this big hole in the ground in the direction the plane was traveling - down.

Please show me where a deep 45 degree hole is in that Shanksville field.

You're little force diagram is great if you are trying to figure how a ball may bounce, but not very good in predicting how a glass is going to shatter.

The funny thing is, the shallow crater looks like something hit and bounced of the ground -- like a ball -- rather than something hitting and shattering out in a fan shape was seen in the photo above of the real plane crash. Interesting.

What's a 45 degree hole?

Here we go with the "shallow". Shallow by what measure?

Better look at some more photos. Just try Google Images and Shanksville. Don't go looking for huge chunks of plane. The plane hit the ground like a bullet.

Originally posted by hooper
What's a 45 degree hole?

Uuuuuh, what would be created by a large object burrowing through the ground at a 45 degree angle?

Here we go with the "shallow". Shallow by what measure?

How long is a 757?

Better look at some more photos. Just try Google Images and Shanksville.

I have, I've NEVER seen a photo showing a hole in that field. Please show me one.

Don't go looking for huge chunks of plane. The plane hit the ground like a bullet.

And it supposedly burrowed through the ground like a bullet at a 45 degree angle, but there is no evidence of a 45 degree hole, or any hole for that matter. So that part of the official story was been proven to be a lie and if any part of the story is proven to be a lie, the entire official story is a lie.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by ATH911]

reply to post by ATH911


Uh- are you expecting there to be something like a bore hole at an angle of 45 degrees to the theoretical horizontal in the ground? Really? Is that what you imagine?

How long is a 757? In what direction? Nose to tail? Wingspan? Diameter of the fuselage?

Exactly what official claimed that there was a 45 degree bore hole, the length of the airplane at Shanksville?

Good thread OP! S&F for you! I have always wondered about that shallow hole in the field up there.It simply does not look like a nosedive crash to me.Don't get me started on the lack of debris and the other oddities surrounding this crash.

Originally posted by hooper
Well, there is this big hole in the ground in the direction the plane was traveling - down.

Originally posted by hooper
Uh- are you expecting there to be something like a bore hole at an angle of 45 degrees to the theoretical horizontal in the ground? Really? Is that what you imagine?

No, I imagine that there would be a deep gouge or crater PARALLEL to the direction of the plane. The crater in Shanksville shows the 'wing imprints' in the SAME LINE as the fuselage area. This means that the entire portion of the fuselage forward of the wings (nearly one-third of the length of the plane) transferred NONE of its horizontal momentum to the ground before the wings reached the surface. But I believe I've demonstrated that at 40º, there was MORE horizontal momentum than vertical, and therefore that simply doesn't ring true...

Can you please clarify what you're saying here? How would you expect things to be different?

I believe I pointed out that the plane was NOT simply traveling 'down', but that it had more horizontal momentum than it did vertical momentum, in that it was travelling at 40º to the ground. If you believe this is wrong, can you please suggest why it is wrong, and how the momentum really worked?

This is what I'm really hoping to achieve from this series. Not a bunch of 'you're wrong, no you're wrong' comments, but people being able to back up their opinions a little...

Rewey

Originally posted by Rewey
but people being able to back up their opinions a little...

Rewey

You should take your own advice.

Provide the crash report for the photo in the OP.

Highlight the gouge too.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Provide the crash report for the photo in the OP.

Once more, Joey fails to see how illogical his demand is. If you weren't aware of the contrary, you would think that Joey is a truther demanding the crash report, like he is.

But no, Joey is an official governent story believer and here he is asking for someone else to post the crash report.

Ironic, is it not? The person who believes the official government story wants others to show him the evidence for what he chooses to believe is true.

Joey, you've been asked a substantial number of times, in different threads to provide the official government data about the Shanksville crater. Each time you have failed to do so. You have avoided, deflected and dodged your way out of doing so.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You should take your own advice.

I did. I presented my opinion, and gave a thorough explanation as to why I believe it to be the case.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Provide the crash report for the photo in the OP.

Nope. I'm not playing that game. I outlined very clearly above where the photo came from, and all the information which was provided with it. If it's good enough for 'OS' supporters to raise and refer to, then suffice to say there should be no qualms about me doing the same. If you want it that bad, go and ask your 'OS' buddies for it. That's where the photo came from.

But I get the feeling you're asking for another reason. I'll tell you what. You provide the official crash report for the Shanksville Flight 93 crash, and I'll provide the crash report for the photo in the OP. Until then, feel free to interpret the information provided as you see fit.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Highlight the gouge too.

Sure. Anything else completely obvious you'd like me to highlight? Perhaps where the ground is? Maybe where the corners of the picture are? Perhaps I should shade in everything which is in grayscale in the photo for you?

Rewey

reply to post by Rewey


The "plane" stopped existing as a single entity the moment the nose made contact with the earth. At that moment the plane began a process of catastrophic deconstruction with each element acting on its own course. That is why there is no discernible forward movement of the "plane", just plane fragments.

Also, your predictions are all based on a very important unknown - the exact composition of the ground at the point of impact.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911

 

Uh- are you expecting there to be something like a bore hole at an angle of 45 degrees to the theoretical horizontal in the ground? Really? Is that what you imagine?

that seems rather logical wouldn't you agree?

this is what bothers me......

the plane came out of the northwest towards the crash site.

it flew over rollock scrapyard coming from the northwest heading southeast.

the blast trajectory is going towards the west/southwest into the trees.

this is inconsistent with the approach of the plane.

also inconsistent is that no debris is found on the east/southeast side of the crater and yet indian lake is 3 miles southeast of it and new baltimore is 8 miles southeast.

there is many ups and downs in terrain between all the locations and yet there was no trail from the crash site to these other debris fields.

it is more than obvious that the plane approaching out of the northwest was not responsible for the damage done adjacent to the crash site therefor not responsible for the crater itself either.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Rewey

 

The "plane" stopped existing as a single entity the moment the nose made contact with the earth. At that moment the plane began a process of catastrophic deconstruction with each element acting on its own course. That is why there is no discernible forward movement of the "plane", just plane fragments.

so you're saying once the planes nose touched the ground the whole plane shattered into millions of little unrecognizable pieces including the landing gears and rows of seats as if they were made of glass?

Starred and flagged.

Decent work on this topic OP.

and I commend you for trying to take on this topic, as the "alleged" crash at Shanksville is basically whatever the person wants to see and believe by a few photos they will.

The limited info on the crash site makes this one a hard one to tackle. But to me. It doesn't look like a plane the size that the OS claims crashed anywhere near that area.

Into the ground like a bullet. I love that one. They use soft soil burms of somewhat the same consistancy to stop bullets at the range. Soft lead bullets reamin pristine when hitting this type of dirt/soft sand?

So if anything there should be MORE wreckage, not less.

TPTB would have done themselves a favor and admitted to shooting down 93. That would have lent some credibility to the 9/11 story. They could have said hey NORAD was able to at least stop on plane from hitting it's target (when really they should have gotten to 3).

Instead of the whole "Let's Roll" thing.

But I guess they didn't want to admit that ANY of the deaths on 9/11 were caused by thier training and protocol. But it's better to say all the deaths were a result of thier incompetance

Originally posted by wholetruth

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Rewey

 

The "plane" stopped existing as a single entity the moment the nose made contact with the earth. At that moment the plane began a process of catastrophic deconstruction with each element acting on its own course. That is why there is no discernible forward movement of the "plane", just plane fragments.

so you're saying once the planes nose touched the ground the whole plane shattered into millions of little unrecognizable pieces including the landing gears and rows of seats as if they were made of glass?

Pretty much. Maybe not seat cushions, or some of the larger parts, but yes, almost as if they were made of glass. Don't forget that plane went from 550 mph to zero in a fraction of a second.

Originally posted by wholetruth

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911

 

Uh- are you expecting there to be something like a bore hole at an angle of 45 degrees to the theoretical horizontal in the ground? Really? Is that what you imagine?

that seems rather logical wouldn't you agree?

this is what bothers me......

the plane came out of the northwest towards the crash site.

it flew over rollock scrapyard coming from the northwest heading southeast.

the blast trajectory is going towards the west/southwest into the trees.

this is inconsistent with the approach of the plane.

also inconsistent is that no debris is found on the east/southeast side of the crater and yet indian lake is 3 miles southeast of it and new baltimore is 8 miles southeast.

there is many ups and downs in terrain between all the locations and yet there was no trail from the crash site to these other debris fields.

it is more than obvious that the plane approaching out of the northwest was not responsible for the damage done adjacent to the crash site therefor not responsible for the crater itself either.

That would only be "logical" if the plane were the same construct as an 8 penny nail.

Maybe the "blast trajectory' is consistent with the direction the plane was heading, more or less, at the time of impact. Maybe you should check your directions.

Originally posted by Rewey

I outlined very clearly above where the photo came from, and all the information which was provided with it.

IOW, you have no idea if the roughly horizontal slash mark there is a result of momentum, or the wings again, like in Shanksville.

Your inability to provide the justification for your "roughly left to right" opinion is duly noted.

S & F for you my friend! The time and effort and research you put into your threads is commendable. It's a shame there are a few elements who seem to take pleasure in discrediting your work with their snide, ill-informed, ignorant, one-liner comments!