How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

Status
Not open for further replies.
UTLonghorn said:
Don't waste your money on this "project", yankee. Use it instead on getting yourself some good psychiatric help. I'm not trying to be insulting, but if you actually believe no planes hit the world trade towers, then that's a clear indication that not everything is functioning up there.
Click to expand...

And if the test proves me right, how will you rationalize that? Will your head pop or something?
 
yankee451 said:
So stupid none of you geniuses can touch it.
Click to expand...

Let's again recap what it is any geniuses watching are supposed to be trying to touch...

Kid Eager said:
  • the crater was made by missiles that didn't exist at the time
  • the accuracy of the missiles that didn't exist at the time, but allegedly created the crater, was greater than the real missiles were capable of
  • there is no evidence that missiles of the type that didn't exist at that time create craters of the type suggested
  • the absence of any missile components at the crash site is a cover-up
  • the presence of aircraft parts and personal effects consistent with the aircraft crashing there is a cover-up
  • there has been not explanation of how, nor is there any evidence that the people who were on the plane somehow, somewhere, had new identities established. But that's okay, he's Just Asking Questions. The fact that there is no evidence only proves how likely it is
  • The preponderance of evidence in favour of a particular outcome has no weight if that outcome is inconsistent with preconceptions. Conversely, speculation has the weight of evidence until proven otherwise AND it is agreed by the poster
  • Tests conducted in the absence of accurate replication of the physics involved will prove those physics
Click to expand...
 
yankee451 said:
Engineers.
Click to expand...

How is that in any way an answer to my post?




Yankee said:
You first.
Click to expand...


In what way was I condescending? Your 'theory' does sound crazy.


yankee451 said:
And if the test proves me right, how will you rationalize that? Will your head pop or something?
Click to expand...

Even if the test (I'm still wondering what your proposed test has anything to do with what happened in Shanksville) was to prove you wrong it isn't a valid test because it doesn't replicate the conditions of the myth, to put it in MythBuster parlance. Therefore the results themselves will be invalid.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
Here's an article stating that "officially" it was being used successfully in November of 2001. So you're saying it wasn't in existence isn't exactly accurate is it? It was not yet in service but it was approved for production in January of 2001, which they wouldn't do if they weren't already proven to work. So despite the official production start time of December 2001. they were clearly operational long before then. Or are you suggesting they would approve production on something that wasn't working, but that two months after 9/11 it suddenly started working?
Click to expand...

It was not operational, there were no JASSM in the inventory until 2002. According to your sources. Oh, you are saying test missiles did it?

Are you saying they skipped the tests, or 46th test wing did 911? When was the first war head done?
How does a tiny missile carry 50,000 pounds of jet fuel? A big 757 engine, two of them? And 100,000 pounds of Al, humans, and luggage? Any clue?

The test guys would not do 911. Are you calling test guys liars?

I liked your MACH 5 Pyrex balls in sand, at 10 degrees the craters don't look like 93's impact.

How did the 46th test wing get the Flt 93 passengers DNA?

Who killed Flt 93 passengers?
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
Get over yourself - you can't even use your real name.
Click to expand...

Lol this is my real name. Hell, all anyone has to do is go to by AA77 blog and click my name at the bottom to see the Google+ account.

Nice red herring, btw. When are you going to enroll to study air crash investigation?
 
Last edited:
Mudcat said:
How is that in any way an answer to my post?
Click to expand...


In answer to the first part of your question, yes, I should have said "Crash Test" instead of "this project". I had just left the other thread and made a mistake and misread the last part of your question to say 'what does that have to to with the shanksville thread", to which I hastily answered "engineers', meaning that I would like the shanksville numbers crunched too. My apologies for being so flip.

I have a couple documents which predict the missile impact craters but I don't have the math chops to crunch the numbers. The engineers should be able to use the existing data about how craters are made, down to trajectory of the ejecta, and prove once and for all whether a missile warhead weighing 900 lbs and measuring 12x60 inches could do it. If not, then what could? If it's a jet then I'm wrong and can go back to having a life.




Mudcat said:
In what way was I condescending? Your 'theory' does sound crazy.
Click to expand...

To be told so, year after year, by people who haven't even examined the argument is condescending and makes me bitchy.
 
yankee451 said:
And if the test proves me right, how will you rationalize that? Will your head pop or something?
Click to expand...

How will you accelerate a wing section to 590 mph? Wait, wrong fantasy.

But wait, this is Flight 93. Darn.

Flight 93? For you to esplode our heads you have to:
1. prove no one died. Impossible, we NWO guys have their DNA
2. prove the FDR is fake. Oops, it is not, it was found 25 or 30 feet in the crater made by, you guessed it, Flt 93.
3. prove the RADAR data is fake from 6 different RADAR sites.
4. Prove the NTSB faked the FDR.
5. prove the FAA did not track 93, and other pilots never saw 93 as traffic the exact place and time found on the RADAR you say is faked, oops, OOPS.
6. prove the CVR was fake, and parts of the transmission were on radio heard by other pilots, at the exact time it was recorded on the CVR. OOPS
7. prove the crater was not made by flight 93, the aircraft found in the crater - with passenger DNA buried with 93 parts, the same passengers who got on 93
8. prove there are missiles missing, the missiles not in inventory on 911, but still in test, and at the test range; are test stuff the military, or the contractor? Do you know how test works, because you showed a doc which had no missiles in the military inventory on 911?
9. OMG, the missile is stupid
10. You have to prove you are blind, since you can't see the parts in photos of the crash site. Or not.
11. you have to prove your theory is not crazy.
12. you have to prove your fantasy is due to some bias, or what?
 
Last edited:
cjnewson88 said:
Lol this is my real name. Hell, all anyone has to do is go to by AA77 blog and click my name at the bottom to see the Google+ account.

Nice red herring, btw. When are you going to enroll to study air crash investigation?
Click to expand...


Touche.
 
yankee451 said:
Touche.
Click to expand...
I graduated a long time ago.

AircraftCourseOrg680.jpg

Flight 93 crash site looks like a crash of a 757, at -41.2 degrees of pitch, 142 degrees of roll, at 487.5 knots.
You claims of missiles is crazy, as in impossible. Better try again, use some evidence this time instead of Pyrex balls at 3800 mph, at 4.75 degrees, can you get your missiles not in inventory on 911 to get down to 4.75 degrees and 3800 mph?
 
Last edited:
Your name is really Beach? I thought you were just a fan of Beach aircraft. Sorry about that.
 
Mudcat said:
Your name is really Beach? I thought you were just a fan of Beach aircraft. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...
with an extra letter
I thought I rubbed that out better.

The class was on March AFB, think they moved it. We had a large area with crashes laid out. High speed crashes would have small parts, the slow speed crashes had large parts. Flt 93 would have all the major sections destroyed into shredded parts. 911 truth has no clue the engine would end up being the main core. Much smaller than the large nacelle.

When 911 truth started making up lies about the crash scene, they expose how stupid they were. I was interested to see why they failed. When 911 truth made claims of fantastic maneuvers on 911, I had to check it out, and found they were stupid claims.

911 truth believers can't comprehend the damage caused in high speed accidents. They don't realize why most accidents look different from 93. Because pilot try to crash as slow as possible, in the most controlled fashion available for the configuration. And accidents during landing and approach are always around 250 and slow knots.

E=1/2mv2 , they forget the V2
 
Last edited:
Kid Eager said:
Let's again recap what it is any geniuses watching are supposed to be trying to touch...

the crater was made by missiles that didn't exist at the time the accuracy of the missiles that didn't exist at the time, but allegedly created the crater, was greater than the real missiles were capable of there is no evidence that missiles of the type that didn't exist at that time create craters of the type suggested the absence of any missile components at the crash site is a cover-up the presence of aircraft parts and personal effects consistent with the aircraft crashing there is a cover-up
there has been not explanation of how, nor is there any evidence that the people who were on the plane somehow, somewhere, had new identities established. But that's okay, he's Just Asking Questions. The fact that there is no evidence only proves how likely it is
Click to expand...

I've highlighted inaccuracies in yellow.

Question- how do you know there was an absense of missile components? Would anyone know the difference between a shredded missile component and a jet part at first glance and whom would they report it to if someone did recognize a missile component? The FBI? CNN? Why would they report missile parts?

Kid Eager said:
The preponderance of evidence in favour of a particular outcome has no weight if that outcome is inconsistent with preconceptions. Conversely, speculation has the weight of evidence until proven otherwise AND it is agreed by the poster
Tests conducted in the absence of accurate replication of the physics involved will prove those physics
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, this describes most of the responders so far.

Unlike you, I am doing something to prove my claims - you believe yours because you saw it on the TeeVee.
 
yankee451 said:
I've highlighted inaccuracies in yellow.

Question- how do you know there was an absense of missile components? Would anyone know the difference between a shredded missile component and a jet part at first glance and whom would they report it to if someone did recognize a missile component? The FBI? CNN? Why would they report missile parts?
Click to expand...

The NTSB would know that the shredded components weren't aircraft components if they weren't. As would the FAA.
 
Liam said:
You won't be proved right. That's not even an opinion, it's fact.
Click to expand...

And yet not one of the presumably large numbers of engineering types can prove a plane caused it. R Mackey was only able to drop some drive by gibberish about dinosaurs and scamper off without a fight. Almost every one of you have resorted to ridicule rather than rational argument; demanding the mathematical calculations to prove my claims, well I'm working on it, you can take that to the bank.

If any of you jokers could walk your talk you would have no problem proving the trajectories and ejecta created by two 900 lb projectiles measuring 12x60 inches either can or cannot account for the gash, and do you know why I think you don't try? Because I think you know the answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom