Challenge: produce two photos from Shanksville scene showing plane wires

reply to post by Varemia


This confirms, then, that the impact site and disturbed area was not a crater with diameter equal to the wingspan, and in fact, it did not need to be.

If you consider this graphic for dimensions:




The total width engine-to-engine can be derived. Really, the majority of the mass, in terms of structure, is contained in the radius outwards from the centerline of the fuselage. The wings, on impact, left impressions, but did not have sufficient KE to dig deeply into the soil. IN fact, they would have been fragmented into thousands of tiny pieces, and the fuel contained inside them spread out widely. SO, very little fuel had a chance to ignite in open air, after being atomized, since the heat sources (engines) were contained within the impact *crater* and rather buried under the dirt.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


You must admit that her story is a bit odd. One moment in the video she is saying that the plane was low enough to be under the powerlines (without making any noise or rustling any leaves), and the next moment she's got another account where she says it was just a white triangle in the sky, way high up. This is a fairly large inconsistency.

Crash Site

According to eyewitnesses.......

Lets see these witnesses. I am sure you shall have no problem producing news clips or statements from legitimate sites and sources rather than from some truther site.

I provided over 10 witness and authority statements as well as the flight93.com official site that claim the dimension of the crash site was no more than 40 feet x 15 feet deep avg.( With sources and links that work to news sites)

Here is a picture to show how stupid the assumption is that you are entertaining here. The ignorant assumption that the there are wing scars when in fact there are no sources or witnesses that claim that there are scars from the wings because the people there all realized that it was an old trench. that was there before 911.

Would you like me to explain the image to you? You are having a hard time understanding some basic principals here.

Hint, the plane was upside down and it came in at a 45 degree angle. The fueslage should of hit where the ground is completely untouched on the right side of green line since the green line is what you 3 official truthers claim is the wing scar.

I can do this all day. I am currently making another flight 93 video that should keep people busy for another 6 years. So be prepared

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

You must admit that her story is a bit odd. One moment in the video she is saying that the plane was low enough to be under the powerlines (without making any noise or rustling any leaves), and the next moment she's got another account where she says it was just a white triangle in the sky, way high up. This is a fairly large inconsistency.

If you had payed attention even a little bit she mentioned two crafts.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Why did you just repeat your last post? Are you not paying attention at all? Whatever. I'm just going to go to bed. You can sit content with your no-content posting of "trying the same thing repeatedly." Wasn't it Einstein or someone who said that doing that was the definition of crazy?

Ah, it was Ben Franklin. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

So, if you'd like a different respond to your post, shadow, please frame it in a different manner, or at least appear to be responding to the other people in the thread. Thanks.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

You must admit that her story is a bit odd. One moment in the video she is saying that the plane was low enough to be under the powerlines (without making any noise or rustling any leaves), and the next moment she's got another account where she says it was just a white triangle in the sky, way high up. This is a fairly large inconsistency.

If you had payed attention even a little bit she mentioned two crafts.

That's not helpful at all. The video did not distinguish between the two craft stories at all. It requires assumption, and I'm trying to limit my assumptions as much as possible.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

You must admit that her story is a bit odd. One moment in the video she is saying that the plane was low enough to be under the powerlines (without making any noise or rustling any leaves), and the next moment she's got another account where she says it was just a white triangle in the sky, way high up. This is a fairly large inconsistency.

If you had payed attention even a little bit she mentioned two crafts.

That's not helpful at all. The video did not distinguish between the two craft stories at all. It requires assumption, and I'm trying to limit my assumptions as much as possible.

The discussion has 2 or 3 guys here claiming that there are wing scars at the Shanksville site. The evidence shows that they were not caused by wings. I made this picture to show you and the other 2 that what you are ignoring is the fact the the trench was there before 911 as you can see.

Explain how you believe the wings caused those dents in the ground without breaking the ground or grass.

Then I will ask you where you believe the fuselage and vertical stabilizer hit and we will need you to explain the impossibility of your answer.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


I told you. I'm collecting information. I don't know. That's where I'm at right now: "I don't know." Perhaps that is unacceptable to you, but I'm simply on the fence about it.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The discussion has 2 or 3 guys here claiming that there are wing scars at the Shanksville site. The evidence shows that they were not caused by wings. I made this picture to show you and the other 2 that what you are ignoring is the fact the the trench was there before 911 as you can see.

They are wing scars. Can you prove they were there prior to 9/11/2001?

Funny...the "drains" look quite charred in this early picture.

reply to post by Six Sigma


I've never seen that photo before. Would you mind referring me to where you found it?

reply to post by Varemia


That photo is from the movie FLT 93 not from the actual crash site.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by Varemia

 

That photo is from the movie FLT 93 not from the actual crash site.

I see. A recreation then. I just tried a google search of "flight 93 crater image," and that one does indeed pop up right up front.

Just found this site which has the photos from the Moussaoui trial in 2006.

This one is particularly nice, because you can see where it looks like the wing "cut" the ground:



You can also clearly see the shredded plane pieces in that photo. I like it.

Edit: Here's a direct link the image if you don't like having to scroll it on the forum:
i.imgur.com...

Originally posted by ATH911

Your challenge is to produce two photos taken of the scene that shows some of this 60 miles of wire.

Since I'm in a good mood, I'm going to help you out by producing one photo showing wires, so now all you have to do is produce only one more.

You don't need to produce another photo, just produce the flight data recorder. All data from the crash would have been transmitted through the miles of wires directly onto the FDR.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder



. I made this picture to show you and the other 2 that what you are ignoring is the fact the the trench was there before 911 as you can see.

That picture shows me that what ever made those scars had about 5 deg dihedral and they were freshly made.

Originally posted by InformationAccount


You don't need to produce another photo, just produce the flight data recorder. All data from the crash would have been transmitted through the miles of wires directly onto the FDR.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by Varemia

 

That photo is from the movie FLT 93 not from the actual crash site.

Sh*t really? Serves me right going to a truther site!!!!!

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Shadow Herder



. I made this picture to show you and the other 2 that what you are ignoring is the fact the the trench was there before 911 as you can see.

That picture shows me that what ever made those scars had about 5 deg dihedral and they were freshly made.

You really believe they were caused by wings?

This 'trenching' is a common feature for the area. This next image shows "wing scars' just around th corner from the crash site. I can provide another 10 examples of 124.10 foot "scars" withing yards of the crash site. It was a reclaimed surface coal mine that was covered with dirt.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Then why in the picture I posted earlier is the "wing scar" burnt? If, as you say, it was an already present feature, wouldn't it be unburnt and not containing plane pieces?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Then why in the picture I posted earlier is the "wing scar" burnt? If, as you say, it was an already present feature, wouldn't it be unburnt and not containing plane pieces?

Something did crash there it just wasnt a Boeing 757.

I will show you an image on the next page. to prove my point and to answer your question.