Flight 93 Crash Site Does Not Look Unique , After Looking At This .

reply to post by backinblack

Ohh and half the 9/11 commissioners say the report was hampered by the WH..

How is that relevant to the topic of this discussion ? That's known as deflection , and contributes absolutely nothing towards the discussion of airplane crashes .

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by backinblack

 

Ohh and half the 9/11 commissioners say the report was hampered by the WH..

How is that relevant to the topic of this discussion ? That's known as deflection , and contributes absolutely nothing towards the discussion of airplane crashes .

No, I was replying to your post with this and more..

For starters , please show where "the official story of 9/11 has been proven false" . What part of the "OS" has been proven false , and how was this proven ?

I was just responding to YOUR deflection.

reply to post by backinblack

I can safely say that every gram of the wings struck the ground...

As one structure? Sufficient in structural cohesion so as to provide a distinct "wing" like imprint visible from a substantial distance? That's the question and the argument.

reply to post by backinblack

No, I was replying to your post with this and more..

For starters , please show where "the official story of 9/11 has been proven false" . What part of the "OS" has been proven false , and how was this proven ?


I was just responding to YOUR deflection

It is common knowledge , and widely accepted on these boards , that the "OS" supports that four airliners were hijacked and crashed on that day .

Therefore , what part of this has been proven false , and how was this proven ?

reply to post by hooper

As one structure? Sufficient in structural cohesion so as to provide a distinct "wing" like imprint visible from a substantial distance? That's the question and the argument.

Is it? I thought it was a question of the wings leaving some sought of mark as opposed to nothing, which is what we see..
You don't get a cartoon cutout of the plane you know..
But yes, they should IMO leave a very visible mark..
Same with the Pentagon and there we know the wings were intact on impact..

reply to post by backinblack


To consider hooper an authority on anything is a stupid gesture. His theories are just as incredible as cgi and holograms theories. I respect peoples opinions but do not adhere to nonsensical theories. This is ATS and most theories are discussed.

He says that the crater in shanksville was caused by a plane whose wings dissapeared before hitting the ground leaving no marks. Just plain silly. Whatever caused the crater did not have anywhere near the dimensions or mass of a Boeing 757 aka Flight 93.


This next image shows you what was created or said to have been crated on September 11th 2001 by alleged Flight 93. The crater has been said to be 10-15 feet deep and only 25-35 feet wide.

Barry Hoover, 34, stands at a locked gate in the driveway of his home; the flight crashed about 100 yards from his house. The house is now considered structurally unsound, and debris went flying on the property and through the roof and windows blew out. He wasn't home at the time of the crash.

"My home life is not my home life," he says. "I had a routine, like everybody else, and now I don?t. I haven't been able to take anything out, not even a CD."

usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/12/21/shanksville.htm

Possibly caused by what eye witness saw. " A small white craft. Smooth" " What i saw was no jet" " It was small white and no bigger than my van"

reply to post by backinblack

Those wings are not quite as flimsy as you make out..

Not saying they are "flimsy". Thats a very subjective and ambigous term. They were designed to survive certain static and dynamic loads. Also designed to deform as a means to protect them overloading. Thats all under normal or even abnormal operating conditions. Striking the ground is not one of those conditions.

Yes the skin is thin but there is structure beneath the skin..

You're right - the superstructure is relatively robust. However we are talking about enormous amount of energy from the impact. Roughly the energy equivalent of a 100 ton object traveling about 700 fps.

At the very least I'd expect to see CLEAR impact damage from the wings and the 44' tail...

Again, why? You assume, again, that these structure made it, intact, all the way to the ground.

By the way, the tail is not 44' tall. The top of the tail is 44' above the ground when the plane is on the ground on wheels. The tail itself is not 44' in dimension.

reply to post by hooper

Again, why? You assume, again, that these structure made it, intact, all the way to the ground.

By the way, the tail is not 44' tall. The top of the tail is 44' above the ground when the plane is on the ground on wheels. The tail itself is not 44' in dimension.

Wow, so the tail is around 40' tall.

But I never said those 124' 10" wide wings were fully intact though they may have been..
I just said they would still leave a mark..

You are just twisting and going round in circles..
Your normal play and quite boring..

IMO the marks on the ground do now conform with a crash by a 757..
There's no evidence you have added to alter that opinion..

reply to post by Shadow Herder

This next image shows you what was created or said to have been crated on September 11th 2001 by alleged Flight 93. The crater has been said to be 10-15 feet deep and only 25-35 feet wide.

And I should believe this because...?

Sounds like just more of your arbitrary and unilateral declarations of "facts".

reply to post by backinblack

Wow, so the tail is around 40' tall.

No, more like 25'. Look at the schematic. The dimension (44.5') is from the ground to the top of the tail. The tail itself erupts from the top of the fuselage. Even allowing for a slight sweep to the tail, for the tail to be 40' means the top of the fuselage, when on the ground on wheels is only 4' above the ground.

But I never said those 124' 10" wide wings were fully intact though they may have been..
I just said they would still leave a mark..

And they did....

You are just twisting and going round in circles..
Your normal play and quite boring..

No, I am subjecting arbitrary statements to some scrutiny. I can't help it if the statements fail under closer examination.

IMO the marks on the ground do now conform with a crash by a 757..
There's no evidence you have added to alter that opinion..

Sure I did. But what you fail to recognize is that you don't have an "opinion". What you are holding onto is more of belief. And if you ever discussed religion with someone who is a firm adherent to one belief system or another you probably realize that rational examination is never going to dissuade belief.

reply to post by hooper

Sure I did. But what you fail to recognize is that you don't have an "opinion". What you are holding onto is more of belief. And if you ever discussed religion with someone who is a firm adherent to one belief system or another you probably realize that rational examination is never going to dissuade belief.

What a crock..

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

The crater is too small to have been cause by a high velocity Boeing 767 coming in at less than 49% angle but thats not the obvious. The scars that extend out of the crater are not caused by wings and no one has ever said they were caused by wings as you can see there is dry unbroken grass and the impression are obviously weathered let alone any of a tail fin. REMEMBER the plane came in inverted (upside down)

Therefore the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 767 or anything remotely the size.

edit on 23-1-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

Wasn't the crater there before the crash of fl.93?I believe someone posted a survey photo of this exact spot of this crater,I believe from the 1990's.I will try to find it and post it.

Walley Miller - "The hole was 10-15 feet deep"

Truthers...

Time to step up. You are all geniuses in that you suggest that flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville. Please explain in detail and with evidence, what you thing the crash site should have looked like.

Thank you,

SS

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Walley Miller - "The hole was 10-15 feet deep"

I am failing to see the point you are trying to make .

Mr. Miller clearly says , @ 2:20-2:26 " ...after the excavation is over ... and they're down there and they're looking at a hole 75 feet deep ..."

Suggesting , that the hole was dug to this depth before all of the wreckage was recovered from the hole . So , what is your point in focussing on the depth of the hole before excavation ? Are you suggesting that all of the debris would have somehow had to remain at the top of the hole ?

Anyone who has ever fired a bullet into the ground , would know that this is an illogical assumption . The bullet will penetrate deep into the ground , and the "crater" left by the impact , will be nowhere near as deep as where you recover the bullet from . Same thing goes for meteorites and such that impact the earth's surface .

Also , @ 4:33 , he says : "...they found alot of luggage ..."

Is anyone suggesting that this man was also "in on" some cover-up ?

Of course the crater is not going to be as deep as the entire wreckage of the plane , common sense tells you this would not be the case , so where is there a valid argument in this line of reasoning ?

reply to post by okbmd

Of course the crater is not going to be as deep as the entire wreckage of the plane , common sense tells you this would not be the case , so where is there a valid argument in this line of reasoning

I don't think its so much the argument (which is empty) but the tone of the presentation. You notice there is a lot of:

"Its been proven...."

"Its been shown over and over..."

"Its a fact...."

So as to lead a causual reader to the inference that somewhere out there is a detailed analysis that has upended the "OS" and anyone that would present to the contrary is flying in the face of established fact.