Flt 93 crater was not unique

[leftysergeant]

It seems that Flt 93 was not the only aircraft ever to dig such a crater as that in the field at Shanksville.

United Airlines Flight 585 did pretty much the same thing, at a much lower speed, in Colorada Springs in 1991.

http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-ua585.shtml

[chris lz]

I think actually, as many here are probably aware, Northwest flight 710 is your best overall analogy (1960/Indiana). The wings separated in flight, and the fuselage crashed vertically at 618mph. The fuselage structure completely disappeared under its impact crater. And I don't exaggerate. Had NW 710 crashed on 9/11, the "no flight 93" types would all be saying "Look! No fuselage. No bodies (there weren't any of those either.) Therefore No Plane!"

I've been at ad.com for years. Truthers wouldn't last at that site for more than two seconds.

[leftysergeant]

I preferr 585 because it more closely resembles the controlled flight into terrain. The wings were still in place, and buried themselves nicely at the proper angles to the fuselage.

Had I used 710, the twoofers would probably have screamed that there should be no wing prints at Shanksville.

Details matter. Problem is, the twoofers don't know which details matter and which don't.

[Tweeter]

The Northwest 710 Crash Versus the Official United 93 Crash
The crash of NW flight 710 into an Indiana field in 1960 has been held as a precedent for the strange crash of UA93. They were both big planes going close to 600 mph when they hit the ground. "William Seger", my pal at DU who has been arguing about my flight 93 crash proof, says the NW 710 crashes debunks the idea that there is anything unusual about the UA93 crash.

The NW 710 plane was an Electra, which was a shorter plane (about 100 long) than the Boeing 757 (150 feet long). The Electra plummeted to the ground after both its wings broke off in flight, and it went straight down from 18,000 feet. It impacted the ground at a 90 degree angle and made a huge crater. The fuselage telescoped and burrowed into the ground and little large plane debris was visible around the crater.

That part is similar to the UA93 official story.

The big difference is that UA93 officially hit the ground at a 40 degree angle and belly up-- according to the official flight data recorder reading.

Thus, once again, it makes NO SENSE that UA93 disappeared into the ground when it hit at this 40 degree oblique angle.

At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.

The plane-shaped crater that UA93 officially produced and the lack of any large debris defies logic-- over and over. :jaw-dropp http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/northwest-710-crash-versus-official.html

[leftysergeant]

Totally wrong, Tweeter. The determining factor is the kinetic energy with which the aircaft hit the ground. By your logic, every bullet fired on a firing range should go zingning off to chase the birds away. Tell it to someone who has never helped rebuild the berm on a rifle range.

[Tweeter]

The bullet analogy again.
Fail

[Reeco]

The bullet analogy again.
Fail

Except he's right.

[leftysergeant]

The anmalogy applies, regardless what a nattering little Aussie barmpot may have told you. It's simple ballistics.

Have you ever fired a firearm of any sort? The shape or structure of the bullet does not even matter.

Cotton bullets will defeat a human skull. 55grain hollow points, designed to flatten out or shatter in flesh will defeat 1/4 inch steel plate. Lead balls will punch a hole in a cast iron skillet.

Look at the Shanksville carter. See how the dirt is pushed up on the down-range side? That's because the nose bit into the dirt at the first moment and just kept on digging.

Now, if you do not believe that a 757 made that hole, that day, come up with an alternative scenario or own that you are talking through your knickers.

[gumboot]

At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.


This statement is unfathomably stupid. Please tell me you're joking.

-Gumboot

[chris lz]

The big difference is that UA93 officially hit the ground at a 40 degree angle and belly up-- according to the official flight data recorder reading

Is that personal intuition or sound physics? I once did a somewhat silly experiment, I suppose. I took a model 757 and plowed it at various angles into a flower pot. Even at 40 degrees, I was unable to tell the difference between a 40 degree imprint and a 90 degree one.



The plane-shaped crater that UA93 officially produced and the lack of any large debris defies logic-- over and over. :jaw-dropp http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/northwest-710-crash-versus-official.html

As other high speed crashes show, lack of "any large debris" doesn't defy logic. For example, PSA 1771, as I'm sure again, many must be familiar with here. It was said the largest piece was six feet long. That would be about the same size, or even smaller, for the largest piece of F93.

[chris lz]

I guess the reason I go for the 710 analogy more than 585 (or USAir 427) is I find in my encounters with no planers, the thing they find most startling is the idea 95% of the plane could be totally buried. I don't think that applied to 585.

[leftysergeant]

I suppose it would be futile to go into the functions of mass and speed (flight 93 was much heavier and much faster than 585) as it relateds to penetration, with people of that mental capacity.

[beachnut]

The Northwest 710 Crash Versus the Official United 93 Crash
The crash of NW flight 710 into an Indiana field in 1960 has been held as a precedent for the strange crash of UA93. They were both big planes going close to 600 mph when they hit the ground. "William Seger", my pal at DU who has been arguing about my flight 93 crash proof, says the NW 710 crashes debunks the idea that there is anything unusual about the UA93 crash.

The NW 710 plane was an Electra, which was a shorter plane (about 100 long) than the Boeing 757 (150 feet long). The Electra plummeted to the ground after both its wings broke off in flight, and it went straight down from 18,000 feet. It impacted the ground at a 90 degree angle and made a huge crater. The fuselage telescoped and burrowed into the ground and little large plane debris was visible around the crater.

That part is similar to the UA93 official story.

The big difference is that UA93 officially hit the ground at a 40 degree angle and belly up-- according to the official flight data recorder reading.

Thus, once again, it makes NO SENSE that UA93 disappeared into the ground when it hit at this 40 degree oblique angle.

At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.

The plane-shaped crater that UA93 officially produced and the lack of any large debris defies logic-- over and over. :jaw-dropp http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/northwest-710-crash-versus-official.html
Except for the FACT 93 did hit at 40 degrees or more and the impact hole is what you get. Having been at real aircraft accidents, owning the scene so to speak. 93 is exactly what a high speed, high angle impact looks like. Landing angles are 2.5 to 3 degree and the pilot flairs. 40 degree is steep, and the plane at 600 mph does not bounce! 93 dug in and also blasted parts. I would not be surprised if parts flew 1000 feet, ejected during the violent impact! But then I have worked accidents, you repeat sick hearsay crap! I have experience and training, oops, it beats hearsay and lies. Darn…

You are wrong, but it is not your fault you have not been trained and you listen to liars! If you got this junk from 9/11 truth you have been fooled! If you made it up from your vast experience, you are just ignorant on aircraft accidents.

[fuelair]

And, just to remind anyone who might be concerned, the difference between ignorance and stupidity is ignorance can be cured.

[slyjoe]

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/northwest-710-crash-versus-official.html[/url]

Look at the moon. What was the angle of all the meteors that hit that surface? Were they all 90 degrees?

Your intuition isn't very good when it comes to physics.

[Max Photon]

What we need here is an expert...

Max Photon, the ValuJet crash, Flight 93, and terra not-so-firma. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3012401#post3012401)

[T.A.M.]

If you look at the crash sites for Flights 427 and 585, they are quite similar to Flight 93. the plane fragments, for the most part, are very small.

As for the parts being "buried", well that is true to a degree. The question is, did 585 or 427 strike an area that was previously a land fill, or using MP terminology, "Terra not so Firma".

TAM:)

[Gravy]

I've got information on all these crashes on this page (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page2).

[leftysergeant]

The plane-shaped crater that UA93 officially produced and the lack of any large debris defies logic-- over and over. :jaw-dropp http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/northwest-710-crash-versus-official.html

Am I addressing Spooked911? You would have had a lot more credibility had you quoted a less woo-filled page.

[ElMondoHummus]

The Northwest 710 Crash Versus the Official United 93 Crash
The crash of NW flight 710 into an Indiana field in 1960 has been held as a precedent for the strange crash of UA93. They were both big planes going close to 600 mph when they hit the ground. "William Seger", my pal at DU who has been arguing about my flight 93 crash proof, says the NW 710 crashes debunks the idea that there is anything unusual about the UA93 crash.

The NW 710 plane was an Electra, which was a shorter plane (about 100 long) than the Boeing 757 (150 feet long). The Electra plummeted to the ground after both its wings broke off in flight, and it went straight down from 18,000 feet. It impacted the ground at a 90 degree angle and made a huge crater. The fuselage telescoped and burrowed into the ground and little large plane debris was visible around the crater.

That part is similar to the UA93 official story.

The big difference is that UA93 officially hit the ground at a 40 degree angle and belly up-- according to the official flight data recorder reading.

Thus, once again, it makes NO SENSE that UA93 disappeared into the ground when it hit at this 40 degree oblique angle.

At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.

The plane-shaped crater that UA93 officially produced and the lack of any large debris defies logic-- over and over. :jaw-dropp http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/northwest-710-crash-versus-official.html


Should have crashed and bounced? What?? Just how much structural integrity does the plane have?

A solid object - like an engine block, or like more solid components of the airplane, like elements of the landing gear, sure, I can accept that they either dig in, or they bounce, but the plane as a whole?

Someone, please tell me I'm misunderstanding the statement. Because I'm at a loss to understand how the plane would "crash and bounce".

[steve s]

I've posted the link to this photo quite a few times. It's a plane that went down in Indiana on October 31, 1994. There's virtually nothing left of the plane. And there's no outline of where the wings or engines hit.

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/eagle4184/photo.shtml


Steve S.

[steve s]

Someone, please tell me I'm misunderstanding the statement. Because I'm at a loss to understand how the plane would "crash and bounce".

Airplanes are made of flubber.

Steve S.

[LashL]

I once did a somewhat silly experiment, I suppose. I took a model 757 and plowed it at various angles into a flower pot. Even at 40 degrees, I was unable to tell the difference between a 40 degree imprint and a 90 degree one.


You should videotape the experiment and put it up on YouTube. ;)

In all seriousness, though, I don't think that qualifies as a "silly" experiment. Rather, I would call it creative and even useful.

[ElMondoHummus]

You should videotape the experiment and put it up on YouTube. ;)

In all seriousness, though, I don't think that qualifies as a "silly" experiment. Rather, I would call it creative and even useful.


Well, it might have been silly, if he was making airplane noises while doing it...

;)


"VeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBOOOOOOOOOM! !!!!"

[beachnut]

What we need here is an expert...

Max Photon, the ValuJet crash, Flight 93, and terra not-so-firma. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3012401#post3012401)
You are the most disrespectful human being I know. Please make fun of dead people more so I can keep faith in the fact you are pathetic with your post of ignorance and pure junk.

The impact of 93 is how it should look for an aircraft crash when it hits and kills real people; something your fantasy mind with sick ideas can not grasp!

You post pathetically moronic tripe about 93. I consider it a degrading attack on me and those who died. Why you may ask? The list is long, but facts and evidence come to mind.



I've got information on all these crashes on this page (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page2).Excellent material, facts and knowledge on 9/11 for 93. Thank you

[Tweeter]

Originally Posted by Tweeter;3318145...

Thus, once again, it makes NO SENSE that UA93 disappeared into the ground when it hit at this 40 degree oblique angle.

At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.

The plane-shaped crater that UA93 officially produced and the lack of any large debris defies logic-- over and over. :jaw-dropp [url
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/northwest-710-crash-versus-official.html[/url]
Look at the moon. What was the angle of all the meteors that hit that surface? Were they all 90 degrees?

Your intuition isn't very good when it comes to physics.

Really??
Considering a meteor entering our atmosphere, is traveling at 10 to 40 kilometers per second, or roughly 50 times the speed of Concorde makes your questions pointless.

[beachnut]

At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.
Wrong. Proven wrong on 9/11 and by what most high speed accidents look like.

[leftysergeant]

Really??
Considering a meteor entering our atmosphere, is traveling at 10 to 40 kilometers per second, or roughly 50 times the speed of Concorde makes your questions pointless.

This seems a rather pointless answer to a valid question. Most meteros that hit the ground on planet earth dig holes, regardless the angle at which they enter the atmosphere, because they lose energy in the atmosphere. This changes the angle of impact somewhat, toward the vertical.

There is no atmosphere on the moon, nor is its gravity so great as to greatly alter the angle at which a meteor impacts. But they all seem to dig holes. what's with that?

[AMTMAN]

This reminds me of the argument truthers try to use with Flight 77. They say "Where is the large debris!?" as if lack of large sections is proof that a 757 did no hit the Pentagon. When they are shown pictures of the El-Al 747F that slammed into an apartment building in Holland they go silent. That's because there is no large sections of debris. Using their logic that must mean it was not a 747 that hit the building.

[WilliamSeger]

The big difference is that UA93 officially hit the ground at a 40 degree angle and belly up-- according to the official flight data recorder reading.

Thus, once again, it makes NO SENSE that UA93 disappeared into the ground when it hit at this 40 degree oblique angle.

At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.


Absurd. Hitting that soft landfill dirt, it would have about as much chance of bouncing as a lawn dart.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by Tweeter;3318145...

Thus, once again, it makes NO SENSE that UA93 disappeared into the ground when it hit at this 40 degree oblique angle.



Please back this claim up. Speculation is not valid. Just because you want that to be true does not make it so.

[tomm]

It seems that Flt 93 was not the only aircraft ever to dig such a crater as that in the field at Shanksville.

United Airlines Flight 585 did pretty much the same thing, at a much lower speed, in Colorada Springs in 1991.

http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-ua585.shtml
Same thing? Maybe it's the same thing if you subtract all the black soot on the ground from the fire damage and the cockpit debris with the windows.

[tomm]

Absurd. Hitting that soft landfill dirt, it would have about as much chance of bouncing as a lawn dart.
Or as one of its engines. ;)

[Corsair 115]

At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.You are neglecting a vital bit of data — the speed of the aircraft. A velocity of 500+ miles per hour results in a rather different crash site than a velocity of 150 miles per hour.

[tomm]

Thus, once again, it makes NO SENSE that UA93 disappeared into the ground when it hit at this 40 degree oblique angle.

At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.
I would say you are half correct. I think it would have dug a bigger crater pushing out in the direction it was traveling and then most of the plane as it started crumpling and breaking would have bounced out of the crater and scattered everywhere. The crater we see at the strip mine looks to have been created by something, well something I've never seen before!

I would still like someone to show me a plane crash where the wings made impressions in the ground of itself like we see at Shanksville.

[leftysergeant]

We did, and it was in much firmer ground.

A Peggy also left a good impression of its wings as it passed through the side of the USS Hinsdale. There's a discussion of that in another thread on this page.

[tomm]

We did, and it was in much firmer ground.

A Peggy also left a good impression of its wings as it passed through the side of the USS Hinsdale. There's a discussion of that in another thread on this page.
Can you post the links to both?

[funk de fino]

Pics from USS Hinsdale on here

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hinsdale_(APA-120) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hinsdale_(APA-120))

[StoneRook]

I would say you are half correct. I think it would have dug a bigger crater pushing out in the direction it was traveling and then most of the plane as it started crumpling and breaking would have bounced out of the crater and scattered everywhere. The crater we see at the strip mine looks to have been created by something, well something I've never seen before!

I would still like someone to show me a plane crash where the wings made impressions in the ground of itself like we see at Shanksville.

Go to here:

yapdates.blogspot.com/2007/10/plane-crash-in-richmond.html

granted - it is a small cessna, but you can clearly see the wing marks on the wall.

so - if a small cessna, hitting a steel/concrete building can do that, imagine what a large jet, smashing into dirt can do.

*btw - cut and paste the link - i'm new here and can't post links..."

[tomm]

Pics from USS Hinsdale on here

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hinsdale_(APA-120) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hinsdale_(APA-120))
That is interesting, however I fail to see how a plane crashing into a steel haul can be compared to crashing into a patch of soft dirt.

I want to see where a plane has left wing impressions in the ground after crashing other than what is observed at Shanksville.

[SDC]

JREF is great because of the new terms and expressions I'm always picking up.

A "lawn dart"? I never heard of them. Wait, wait, they were banned in 1997. http://www.kidsource.com/cpsc/lawn.darts.html Must be a generational thing.

"Crash and bounce"?? Somehow, that should be applied to Britney Spears' and Lindsay Lohan's escapades and collapses, only I don't exactly see how. Perhaps someone will help.

Edit: possible use of "crash and bounce:" "Boy, after that pop tart had too much booze and drugs, not only did she fall out of her Hummer, she really crashed and bounced."

[tomm]

Go to here:

yapdates.blogspot.com/2007/10/plane-crash-in-richmond.html

granted - it is a small cessna, but you can clearly see the wing marks on the wall.

so - if a small cessna, hitting a steel/concrete building can do that, imagine what a large jet, smashing into dirt can do.
I think you are misunderstanding me, I don't doubt that wings would leave marks in dirt. I doubt they would leave marks in soft dirt so similar to marks left in steel. I would image large plane wings loaded with fuel would blow up when it hit the ground and leave a crater in the dirt that would look more like a bomb crater.

[Alferd_Packer]

At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.


No matter what the angle of an impactor, craters are always round.

[beachnut]

I would say you are half correct. I think it would have dug a bigger crater pushing out in the direction it was traveling and then most of the plane as it started crumpling and breaking would have bounced out of the crater and scattered everywhere. The crater we see at the strip mine looks to have been created by something, well something I've never seen before!

I would still like someone to show me a plane crash where the wings made impressions in the ground of itself like we see at Shanksville.
The sad part of your ignorance is 93 did hit in PA, as it looks. To make up false ideas is stupid. To make up false information is ignorance. Bounced out? In a high energy impact, as in lower energy impacts, objects are ejected in the chaos. 93's impact is as it should be. Lack of experience is leading to your ignorance on this topic and you have not learned since your last 93 lack of facts posts.

To display this much ignorance and ignore all the evidence is standard 9/11 truth methods. Implying 93 did not crash there you have to prove all the evidence is fake. But you have no evidence to do so.

[funk de fino]

That is interesting, however I fail to see how a plane crashing into a steel haul can be compared to crashing into a patch of soft dirt.

I want to see where a plane has left wing impressions in the ground after crashing other than what is observed at Shanksville.

What hit the ground at Shanksville then?

[DGM]

I think you are misunderstanding me, I don't doubt that wings would leave marks in dirt. I doubt they would leave marks in soft dirt so similar to marks left in steel. I would image large plane wings loaded with fuel would blow up when it hit the ground and leave a crater in the dirt that would look more like a bomb crater.
The soft dirt is the key. The wings and fuel were traveling at 600 mph. When the wings break up the fuel will still travel into the ground (most). With limited air to mix with (underground) you would not get the huge crater forming explosion. Just a fireball from the fuel that did not penetrate the ground.

[tomm]

What hit the ground at Shanksville then?
Doesn't look like a Boeing 757 did.

[DavidJames]

Doesn't look like a Boeing 757 did.
exactly and nevermind the DNA, body parts, plane bits and pieces found by all the people who walked around the scene.

If it doesn't look like it from photos it didn't happen.

[tomm]

The soft dirt is the key. The wings and fuel were traveling at 600 mph. When the wings break up the fuel will still travel into the ground (most). With limited air to mix with (underground) you would not get the huge crater forming explosion. Just a fireball from the fuel that did not penetrate the ground.
OK, that would make sense then. I guess I didn't take that into consideration.

Just thought of something, how much fuel did Flight 93 still contain at the time of impact?

[TheRedWorm]

Hey tomm, in another thread you made the claim that flight 93 physics were impossible, or words to that effect. I asked you this question before, but have yet the answer it. Let us hope you are more willing to either answer or admit you cannot

Please, using math, show us what is wrong with the Shanksville crash physics.

[tomm]

exactly and nevermind the DNA, body parts, plane bits and pieces found by all the people who walked around the scene.

If it doesn't look like it from photos it didn't happen.
Those are all the kinds of things I'd expect to have been recovered if the government had faked a plane crash.

[beachnut]

Those are all the kinds of things I'd expect to have been recovered if the government had faked a plane crash.
Ignorance is 9/11 truth. You are continuously producing flawed ideas on 93.
You present no evidence just talk like 9/11 truth. False information and lies. Exposing your lack of knowledge across all disciplines that could help you understand 9/11. Lost in ignorance you repeat hearsay misinformation from 9/11 truth.

Like the mindless drones of 9/11 truth you have no evidence to support your smallest idea on 9/11. Zero evidence, zero use of facts, what will you tell us next?

[Totovader]

Those are all the kinds of things I'd expect to have been recovered if the government had faked a plane crash.

Then what would it take to convince you that you're wrong- if evidence simply will not do it, what will?

[stateofgrace]

Those are all the kinds of things I'd expect to have been recovered if the government had faked a plane crash.

You'd expect to find?

Been involved in a lot of fake plane crashes have you ?

[tomm]

Then what would it take to convince you that you're wrong- if evidence simply will not do it, what will?
Planted evidence won't convince me.

[chris lz]

Can any "no flight 93" theorists tell us what post-911 event depended on the murder of grass? I believe this would be the first conspiracy in history targeting plants.

[DGM]

Planted evidence won't convince me.
This evidence was planted by the people in Shanksville? They were the first people there and did a majority of the cleanup and investigative grunt work.

[Totovader]

Planted evidence won't convince me.

That's not an answer to my question, it's an evasion of the question.

Again, the question is what will convince you, if not evidence? If you're just going to claim that all evidence is planted (without any proof)- then you're saying that your position cannot be falsified.

Do you understand why this is important? You're arriving at your conclusion first, and then ignoring all the evidence which contradicts it.

Does that sound rational or scientific to you?

[beachnut]

Planted evidence won't convince me.
No one has planted any evidence in you.





you are so safe from being accused of having any

So you have refuted all the evidence yet? FDR, DNA, ???

[leftysergeant]

Planted evidence won't convince me.

Planted how? No no-plane ranter has yet risen to my challenge.

Explain how that fresh crater got created by some means other than driving an airliner into the ground or admit you are talking out the wrong end of your body cavity.

[Corsair 115]

I think it would have dug a bigger crater pushing out in the direction it was traveling and then most of the plane as it started crumpling and breaking would have bounced out of the crater and scattered everywhere.See post #34.

[WilliamSeger]

Doesn't look like a Boeing 757 did.

Uh, yes it does. Perhaps a visual aid will help (although it didn't seem to help Tweeter/Spooked911 any).

http://opendb.com/images/93-crater-anim.gif

[Alferd_Packer]

Planted evidence won't convince me.

Nothing will convince you, since you have made up your mind, reardless of reality.

Please provide proof that evidence was planted.

[chris lz]

Nothing will convince you, since you have made up your mind, reardless of reality.

Please provide proof that evidence was planted.

And why they needed to kill grass.

[Brainache]

And why they needed to kill grass.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475276/
Overview
Director:Paul Greengrass

Writer (WGA):Paul Greengrass (written by)

Release Date:17 August 2006 (Australia) more


Coincidence?

HMMMM.....:hypnodisk

[chris lz]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475276/


Coincidence?

HMMMM.....:hypnodisk

Seriously, let's face it. Without the dead grass, how could the Grand Conspiracy have succeeded? Three other plane crashes, 3,000 fatalities and three demolished buildings pale in comparison.

[chris lz]

I want to see where a plane has left wing impressions in the ground after crashing other than what is observed at Shanksville.


BEA flight 706/ Oct 2 1971:

"The Vanguard's impact was so vertical and violent that, as well as a crater six metres deep, the frontal shape of the wings was deeply imprinted in the soft ground"

[Mel Odious]

You are neglecting a vital bit of data — the speed of the aircraft. A velocity of 500+ miles per hour results in a rather different crash site than a velocity of 150 miles per hour.

To bolster Corsair 115's point, an aircraft descending at 500 m.p.h. hits the ground with over 11 times the kinetic energy of a plane hitting the ground at 150 m.p.h. And if the aircraft also has a significantly larger mass, that number goes up another click or two.

Tweeter, if your post was a just a bit funnier, I'd nominate you for a Stundie.

[LashL]

Uh, yes it does. Perhaps a visual aid will help (although it didn't seem to help Tweeter/Spooked911 any).


Am I reading this correctly as Tweeter=Spooked of bunny cage arsonist infamy?

[uk_dave]

Those are all the kinds of things I'd expect to have been recovered if the government had faked a plane crash.

No, if the government had faked the plane crash you wouldn't see anything wrong with it because it would look exactly how you imagine it should.

It's just the air crash investigators of the world who'd be a bit puzzled, especially by the slightly crumpled tail section sticking out of the ground.

[leftysergeant]

BEA flight 706/ Oct 2 1971:

"The Vanguard's impact was so vertical and violent that, as well as a crater six metres deep, the frontal shape of the wings was deeply imprinted in the soft ground"

Got a link to that? I've google myself sick looking for more info on that one.

[funk de fino]

Those are all the kinds of things I'd expect to have been recovered if the government had faked a plane crash.

Wheres the plane and the passengers then?

[Dave Rogers]

Those are all the kinds of things I'd expect to have been recovered if the government had faked a plane crash.

They're also the kinds of things you'd expect to have been recovered from a real plane crash. That's kind of implicit in the definition of the word "faked". In other words, this is a non-argument.

Planted evidence won't convince me.

That's the classic difference between truthers and debunkers. Evidence of planting evidence would convince us that there was something wrong with the evidence. You've just chosen to believe it was planted because it doesn't fit your conclusion.

Dave

[chris lz]

No, if the government had faked the plane crash you wouldn't see anything wrong with it because it would look exactly how you imagine it should.



Nicely stated. The same for Mark Bingham's phone call, Bush's pet goat story, and a host of others. The quirk factor of real life, something many truthers seem unable to comprehend, is more than reason to doubt that these were pre-planned scripts.

[chris lz]

Got a link to that? I've google myself sick looking for more info on that one.

My apologies. I thought I'd given the source. I'm more of a paper person, so there's no link. It's from Air Disaster vol. 4 by MacArthur Job - p180/photo caption.

In vol. 1 of that series, one may note the similarity of Swissair flight 306 (1963) to UA 93/ 585 & Co. There's virtually no sign of a plane anywhere in the picture, just a a very empty looking crater. Nor were any bodies found. However, it's possible wreckage had been cleared before the picture was taken. More details needed, if anyone can supply it.


Chris

[TC329]

This statement is unfathomably stupid. Please tell me you're joking.

-Gumboot

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/UA93FDR3small.jpg

it makes perfect sense that a plane approaching at a 40 degree angle would leave an imprint resembling a 90 degree angle.

the 40 degree angle also explains why the excavation hole was dug straight down to match a 90 degree impact.

it doesn't matter that the fdr contradicts all of the eyewitness accounts too.

[leftysergeant]

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/UA93FDR3small.jpg

it makes perfect sense that a plane approaching at a 40 degree angle would leave an imprint resembling a 90 degree angle.

the 40 degree angle also explains why the excavation hole was dug straight down to match a 90 degree impact.

it doesn't matter that the fdr contradicts all of the eyewitness accounts too.

Bad Science. You have the plane going in right-side up. It was upside down.

And the hole was not dug straight down. It was dug in the direction the plane was going, pushing up earth on the downrange side of the crater.

Part of the reason you became a twoofer may be your inability to understand visual information.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Tweeter;3318145...

Thus, once again, it makes NO SENSE that UA93 disappeared into the ground when it hit at this 40 degree oblique angle.

At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.

The plane-shaped crater that UA93 officially produced and the lack of any large debris defies logic-- over and over. :jaw-dropp [url
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/northwest-710-crash-versus-official.html[/url]


Really??
Considering a meteor entering our atmosphere, is traveling at 10 to 40 kilometers per second, or roughly 50 times the speed of Concorde makes your questions pointless.
Have you considered a career in engineering? Stop now, you will not make it through. Go into the humanities or something harmless.

[leftysergeant]

Have you considered a career in engineering? Stop now, you will not make it through. Go into the humanities or something harmless.

What part of the humanities would that be? Most fields require a little better ability to interpret data.

I would really recommend technical college instead, something in the hospitality industry.

[chris lz]

it doesn't matter that the fdr contradicts all of the eyewitness accounts too.


Many gave no mention of the exact angle. Others said 90, or straight down. Lee Purbaugh gave 45 degrees.

[fuelair]

What part of the humanities would that be? Most fields require a little better ability to interpret data.

I would really recommend technical college instead, something in the hospitality industry.
note that or (doesn't say or something else harmless, says or something harmless) if I meant the humanities were harmless, I would have put the else in!!!:)

[SDC]

note that or (doesn't say or something else harmless, says or something harmless) if I meant the humanities were harmless, I would have put the else in!!!:)

On behalf of Humanistas everywhere (and you know who you are) ... I, well, nothing. Sorry, I'll just go away. Somewhere safe. Where I can do no damage.

[beachnut]

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/UA93FDR3small.jpg

it makes perfect sense that a plane approaching at a 40 degree angle would leave an imprint resembling a 90 degree angle.

the 40 degree angle also explains why the excavation hole was dug straight down to match a 90 degree impact.

it doesn't matter that the fdr contradicts all of the eyewitness accounts too.
You just can't see very well, you lack knowledge in accident investigation. First of all you have no idea what the final angle really was. But the impact looks exactly like about 40 degrees in the wing impact then a steep pile to the south where most the mass ended up. You lost this one but next time you should take an accident investigation course at USC if you want to know what happen or have any credibility. You have zero expert status unless you can come up with something better than hearsay BS and junk science. When will you use some facts and knowledge. Hearsay opinion junk does not work. Shallow research is showing.

No, only idiots would say the FDR is not supported by witnesses, or the other way around. Fools! The FDR confirms what witnesses said. Are you unable to understand what they said because you are blinded by stupid belief in 9/11 truth. You need to read the witnesses statements first before you state the FDR junk. You have to correlate the FDR with the statements, which you never really did. If you did you would present the time vs. witnesses statement and show why the plane rolled over on it's back and the witness saying the plane rolled over on it's back does not make sense. They said it, oops, FDR confirms witness. You got it backwards. 9/11 truth false information guy gets it wrong again; FDR says roll over on back, witness says roll over on back~!

You are WRONG on this one! Next time read what the witnesses said and understand the FDR came from the crash site. Bingo, you guys are not very good at this.

[DGM]

Beachnut:
For my curiosity, How much different would the crater have looked if the plane was not inverted? I envision a much larger crater due to the fact that the lift on the wings would increase the speed of the plane in relation to the ground. Would this be correct?

Thanks in advance.

[Corsair 115]

Bad Science. You have the plane going in right-side up. It was upside down.Not quite upside down. It had a 150° right roll according to the FDR data posted by Gravy in another thread awhile back. 150° is 30° short of being fully inverted, but probably close enough for general discussion purposes.

[beachnut]

Beachnut:
For my curiosity, How much different would the crater have looked if the plane was not inverted? I envision a much larger crater due to the fact that the lift on the wings would increase the speed of the plane in relation to the ground. Would this be correct?

Thanks in advance.
I like the example below. The speed should be the same upside down or right side. I think the impact would be similar.

Uh, yes it does. Perhaps a visual aid will help (although it didn't seem to help Tweeter/Spooked911 any).

http://opendb.com/images/93-crater-anim.gif
I have no idea why some thinks the plane would bounce. Some things are ejected, at random.

A plane would only bounce if you land, or hit a rate of descent the plane can handle or almost handle. That speed is like 700 feet per minute, not 700 feet per second. At 700 fpm, the plane can bounce some, at 700 fps the plane is destroyed and parts are ejected from the explosion like impact! Even 1400 fpm, parts of the plane may bounce along, but at 700 fps, the plane will make a hole and bury a lot of parts. Who makes up this junk about bouncing?

TC's diagram confirms the impact too. Funny debunking themselves as they post the debunking proof. Did he even look at the crater?

note; since the 9/11 truth world said bounce and the plane is upside down, did it bounce down? stupid yes, but it fits the bounce; just tell them yes it should bounce but it was upside down, it bounced down.

[ElMondoHummus]

I have no idea why some thinks the plane would bounce. Some things are ejected, at random.

A plane would only bounce if you land, or hit a rate of descent the plane can handle or almost handle. That speed is like 700 feet per minute, not 700 feet per second. At 700 fpm, the plane can bounce some, at 700 fps the plane is destroyed and parts are ejected from the explosion like impact! Even 1400 fpm, parts of the plane may bounce along, but at 700 fps, the plane will make a hole and bury a lot of parts. Who makes up this junk about bouncing?



In this vein, Beech: My last comment about "bouncing" was flippant, but this one isn't. Who the heck thinks any airplane has enough structural strength to handle anything more than a very shallow impact at very low speeds with the ground?

My reference for the inability of a plane to keep its integrity in a crash is the following:


E21byPXR1ek


(Pardon the NSFW tag - the video's not adult or obscene in any manner. It's just that I wanted to use some sort of "hide" tag that could also explain the video; I fear it might be emotional for any servicemember who knew anyone involved in the crash.)

I don't know how fast the plane was going, and I admit that it hit at a sharp angle - nearly perfectly vertical, as far as I can tell - but the bomber in the video just simply starts to collapse into itself the very instant it touches. I know I'm operating completely from personal opinion here, but the point is that I simply cannot imagine a plane not breaking up unless it hit at an extremely - and I mean extremely - shallow angle, and at a very low speed. For all the experts on this forum: Is that a reasonable statement? And: Just how shallow and how slow would it have to be, approximately, for a midrange Boeing passenger jet (like a Boeing 757) to "bounce" (i.e. not disintegrate)? Yes, I know that's not a figure that anyone would research, let alone publish ("Okay Earl, let's take this one in at 5 degress and see if it bounces..."), I'm just seeing if anyone has a reasonably informed guess on the matter. "Reasonably informed" meaning having some knowledge, however superficial, of how much stress it takes to disrupt the structure of such a jet.

[Slayhamlet]

Fixed your NSFW tags (it doesn't like apostrophes for some reason):

E21byPXR1ek

[Jonnyclueless]

This is PROOF of an inside job because it PROVES that flight 93 should have bounced and ended up in a tree. Just look at the picture. There's a blue arrow that points up. If the blue arrow points up, it PROVES the plane should have impacted at a 180 degree angle.

http://animalrecordsltd.com/UA93FDR3small.jpg

[beachnut]

In this vein, Beech: My last comment about "bouncing" was flippant, but this one isn't. Who the heck thinks any airplane has enough structural strength to handle anything more than a very shallow impact at very low speeds with the ground?

My reference for the inability of a plane to keep its integrity in a crash is the following:

I don't know how fast the plane was going, and I admit that it hit at a sharp angle - nearly perfectly vertical, as far as I can tell - but the bomber in the video just simply starts to collapse into itself the very instant it touches. I know I'm operating completely from personal opinion here, but the point is that I simply cannot imagine a plane not breaking up unless it hit at an extremely - and I mean extremely - shallow angle, and at a very low speed. For all the experts on this forum: Is that a reasonable statement? And: Just how shallow and how slow would it have to be, approximately, for a midrange Boeing passenger jet (like a Boeing 757) to "bounce" (i.e. not disintegrate)? Yes, I know that's not a figure that anyone would research, let alone publish ("Okay Earl, let's take this one in at 5 degress and see if it bounces..."), I'm just seeing if anyone has a reasonably informed guess on the matter. "Reasonably informed" meaning having some knowledge, however superficial, of how much stress it takes to disrupt the structure of such a jet.
To bounce you would still want your deck angle at a landing attitude, but if you increase your decent rate, you can get a good bounce, but it is because of two things, you can bounce due to the landing gear and your change of attitude/AOA making your nose come up and you fly back into the air, you can bounce a few times as you loose speed and finally flop on to the runway. Instead, on the first bounce go around safely, if you end up in a great landing attitude, land, but you can always try again, later. But the only things that kind of bounce in a big crash are things that are ejected like the wing tip in the B-52 accident. If you hit hard enough you do not bounce, the plane breaks up. If you just keep pointing at the ground at steeper angles you will crash. If you land in a high sink rate, you crash. Hard landings : Both are just above the landing limit for sink rates!

XiSf8kM0ByY

JjAasNg0v8Y

The B-52 accident also shows that Val's photo is normal for a crashed plane.
Yes, if you land hard your plane falls apart. I think a fully loaded KC-135 rate of descent for landing was
Jet crash videos.

B-52 crash, stall, about 150 mph to 200 mph

FUEhNKBi4DY

Extra credit back ground read the youtube write up for lots more info, or find an Air Force pilot to ask his ideas on the B-52 accident.

YQa4PpIkOZU

[ElMondoHummus]

Fixed your NSFW tags (it doesn't like apostrophes for some reason):

E21byPXR1ek


It doesn't? The apostrophe appeared just fine in my browser.

[WilliamSeger]

Am I reading this correctly as Tweeter=Spooked of bunny cage arsonist infamy?

Apparently so, since "Tweeter" referred to our discussion of the crater on the DU board and linked to one of Spooky's many, many blogs. In addition to the infamous flaming bunny cage, Spooky's scientific investigations include jamming a wooden model of an airplane into a wooden model of a WTC tower and noting that the wings broke off -- an experiment which hasn't gotten as much acclaim as the flaming bunny cage but which certainly has just as much scientific significance. He is equally at home with theory; he recently posted a long critique demonstrating that Bazant doesn't know what he's talking about -- and Spooky didn't need even a single equation to show it.

[ElMondoHummus]

Extra credit back ground read the youtube write up for lots more info, or find an Air Force pilot to ask his ideas on the B-52 accident.



Wow! I just read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_aircraft_crash_at_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base

I had no idea of the magnitude of the story behind that crash. I only remembered it from seeing it on TV once. That's one whopper of a narrative.

[/digression]

[beachnut]

Wow! I just read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_aircraft_crash_at_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base

I had no idea of the magnitude of the story behind that crash. I only remembered it from seeing it on TV once. That's one whopper of a narrative.

[/digression]
There was also a KC-135 accident, slow speed, stall, same base, near the tower or base ops. But the KC-135 crew got into the wake of a B-52 doing a low speed maneuver, but still practice for an air show.

[HL7442]

Shills! Airplanes come apart like model airplanes!
Instructed you well...........the Neocons have.


:drool:

[OldTigerCub]

I have been reading through this thread and noticed one thing that has not been brought up in the "flight recorder does not match witness testimony" argument. Flight recorders were designed to assist accident investigators in finding out why a plane crashed. They are designed to find malfunctions or errors or other anomolies during flight that the crew might not have time to report. They were not designed to document every single occurrance to the microsecond of every function of every sensor all the way to the ground. There is a time lag, since data is fed to the FDR in a serial format, that can result in the last sensor readings being unrecorded.
Flight 93 hit the ground at (at least) 500 Knots...that's 580 mph...that's 850 fps...that's in the range of the velocity of your average .45 caliber hollow-point round fired from a gun.
The data recorded at the last cycle does not necessarilly reflect the actual precise attitude of the airplane, nor does it reflect the final speed, as Flight 93 was descending, accelerating, and flipping over before impact.

[beachnut]

I have been reading through this thread and noticed one thing that has not been brought up in the "flight recorder does not match witness testimony" argument. Flight recorders were designed to assist accident investigators in finding out why a plane crashed. They are designed to find malfunctions or errors or other anomolies during flight that the crew might not have time to report. They were not designed to document every single occurrance to the microsecond of every function of every sensor all the way to the ground. There is a time lag, since data is fed to the FDR in a serial format, that can result in the last sensor readings being unrecorded.
Flight 93 hit the ground at (at least) 500 Knots...that's 580 mph...that's 850 fps...that's in the range of the velocity of your average .45 caliber hollow-point round fired from a gun.
The data recorded at the last cycle does not necessarilly reflect the actual precise attitude of the airplane, nor does it reflect the final speed, as Flight 93 was descending, accelerating, and flipping over before impact.Outstanding point and there may be more of delay than 9/11 truth can understand!

[gumboot]

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/UA93FDR3small.jpg

it makes perfect sense that a plane approaching at a 40 degree angle would leave an imprint resembling a 90 degree angle.

the 40 degree angle also explains why the excavation hole was dug straight down to match a 90 degree impact.

it doesn't matter that the fdr contradicts all of the eyewitness accounts too.


Your 2 dimensional image fails to take into account the fact that the aircraft was in fact 3 dimensional. It was not only upside down, at a 40 degree angle, but also in a starboard bank and upward pitch (relative to the aircraft axis, a down pitch relative to the ground).

Your image depicts expected debris direction based on a single axis of momentum. In reality the aircraft had three axes of momentum.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Air New Zealand Flight TE 109 (A DC-10) hit Mt Erebus at about a 14 degree angle, at about 500 km/h. No tail sections in sight. (http://www.archives.govt.nz/exhibitions/currentexhibitions/chch/images/pc-erebus-crashsite.jpg)

-Gumboot

[AMTMAN]

Air New Zealand Flight TE 109 (A DC-10) hit Mt Erebus at about a 14 degree angle, at about 500 km/h. No tail sections in sight. (http://www.archives.govt.nz/exhibitions/currentexhibitions/chch/images/pc-erebus-crashsite.jpg)

-Gumboot

Good point. Must mean there was no plane, according to some at least.

[StoneRook]

Fulcrum crash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oS0v2zMuEI

Why do people think planes going high speed and at high AOA's will bounce hitting the ground?

[uk_dave]

Fulcrum crash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oS0v2zMuEI

Why do people think planes going high speed and at high AOA's will bounce hitting the ground?

Because that's the only way to allow John McClane continue to the end of the film

[StoneRook]

ah - forgot the "die hard" factor.

silly me...

[DavidJames]

Because that's the only way to allow John McClane continue to the end of the film
I'm not sure if you meant that as a joke or not, but I think you are spot on with some CTists. I'm afraid for many of them, the only science and physics "reality" they know, is what they've seen on TV and in the movies.

[Norseman]

On september 2nd 1998 a Swissair MD-11 crashed into the sea off Novia Scottia:
The standby attitude display showed the aircraft to be at 20 degrees nose down and 110 degrees right bank at the time of impact. The dial face on
the airspeed indicator had marks, made at the time of impact, that correspond to an airspeed of 300 knots. The structural damage indicates that the aircraft had a nose-down attitude of about 20 degrees, and a right bank in excess of 60 degrees. Analysis of the markings on various wreckage pieces indicated that the impact force was from 15 degrees right of the aircraft centreline.
The report (32 MB PDF) (http://bst-tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a98h0003/eReport/sr111_200303.pdf)

The impact force was estimated to be in order of at least 350 G in the longitudinal direction. The aircraft did not bounce on impact, instead it was totally shredded. It was so shredded that they gave up on using divers to recover the pieces, they ended up with using a scallop rake and finally they suction dredged the wreckage area, that was 55 meter below the surface, down to a depth of 1,5m.

Photos of the recovery work.
(http://bst-tsb.gc.ca/en/media/photo_database/A98H0003/wreckage/recovery/thumbs_recovery.asp)(Note the container with pieces at the bottom of the gallery.)
Pictures from the reconstruction of the forward of the aircraft. (http://bst-tsb.gc.ca/en/media/photo_database/A98H0003/wreckage/reconstruction/thumbs_reconstruction.asp)
The engines.
(http://bst-tsb.gc.ca/en/media/photo_database/A98H0003/engines/thumbs_engines.asp)
Given this, what do the truthers expect should have happened to Flight 93 hitting the ground at much higher speed and steeper angle?

[Gravy]

On september 2nd 1998 a Swissair MD-11 crashed into the sea off Novia Scottia:

The report (32 MB PDF) (http://bst-tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a98h0003/eReport/sr111_200303.pdf)

The impact force was estimated to be in order of at least 350 G in the longitudinal direction. The aircraft did not bounce on impact, instead it was totally shredded. It was so shredded that they gave up on using divers to recover the pieces, they ended up with using a scallop rake and finally they suction dredged the wreckage area, that was 55 meter below the surface, down to a depth of 1,5m.

Photos of the recovery work.
(http://bst-tsb.gc.ca/en/media/photo_database/A98H0003/wreckage/recovery/thumbs_recovery.asp)(Note the container with pieces at the bottom of the gallery.)
Pictures from the reconstruction of the forward of the aircraft. (http://bst-tsb.gc.ca/en/media/photo_database/A98H0003/wreckage/reconstruction/thumbs_reconstruction.asp)
The engines.
(http://bst-tsb.gc.ca/en/media/photo_database/A98H0003/engines/thumbs_engines.asp)
Given this, what do the truthers expect should have happened to Flight 93 hitting the ground at much higher speed and steeper angle?Excellent example, Norseman! I'm going to add that to my flight 93 section.

[Tweeter]

Are there any pics of the wreckage being pulled out of the crater?

[Gravy]

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page2
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page3

[Norseman]

Excellent example, Norseman! I'm going to add that to my flight 93 section.
That was quick Gravy, I see that you already have added it to your site.:)

[uk_dave]

That was quick Gravy, I see that you already have added it to your site.:)

That's because the NWO knew about your post before you even posted it.

No one is ever going to accuse us of being slow.................




..... and live to tell the tale.

[Miragememories]

This is an aerial image of the purported Flight 93 crash site in a field near Shankesville.
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7084/shankesville1aye8.png

In 1994 a U.S. Geological Survey captured this image of the same location.
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9067/aerial1994usgsry7.png (http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9067/aerial1994usgsry7.png)

Other than wear 'n tear from 7 years of additional weathering, the only appreciable change was the addition of a center crater (bomb?).

What an amazing coincidence that Flight 93 aligned itself with an existing gouge in that field.

MM

[Norseman]

This is an aerial image of the purported Flight 93 crash site in a field near Shankesville.
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7084/shankesville1aye8.png

In 1994 a U.S. Geological Survey captured this image of the same location.
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9067/aerial1994usgsry7.png (http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9067/aerial1994usgsry7.png)

Other than wear 'n tear from 7 years of additional weathering, the only appreciable change was the addition of a center crater (bomb?).

What an amazing coincidence that Flight 93 aligned itself with an existing gouge in that field.

MM
Totally wrong MM. The 94 photo was taken when they were backfilling the strip mine to reclaim it. That is very evident even distorted crop you posted.

For a sharp version of the above photo go to:
http://www.flashearth.com/
Choose Mircrosoft VE (aerial). Search for Shanksville, then move a little bit to the north by dragging to find the area.

Present day status can be seen by clicking on Google Maps.

Here is a sharp crop of the area, does not look like a gouge do it? Looks more like a bulldozer shoveling fresh earth, compared to the dry earth around. And the crash site was to the south of your "gouge", much closer to the road, in fact the wing tip touched the road:

(See photo in the next post by Gravy. He was quicker, so I removed my crop of the area)

[Gravy]

Totally wrong MM. The 94 photo was taken when they were backfilling the strip mine to reclaim it. That is very evident even distorted crop you posted.

For a sharp version of the above photo go to:
http://www.flashearth.com/
Choose Mircrosoft VE (aerial). Search for Shanksville, then move a little bit to the north by dragging to find the area.

Present day status can be seen by clicking on Google Maps.How much more incompetent can these people get? The crater area isn't even at the same elevation as in the '94 photo.

As for the wings "lining up" with the 250-foot gash, uh, no.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Shanksville1994Aerial.jpg

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Flight93craterwidth.jpg/Flight93craterwidth-full.jpg

What complete wastes of the intertubes these people are.

[PhantomWolf]

No, if the government had faked the plane crash you wouldn't see anything wrong with it because it would look exactly how you imagine it should.

It's just the air crash investigators of the world who'd be a bit puzzled, especially by the slightly crumpled tail section sticking out of the ground.

Only if the Government were as dumb as truthers... oh, um, yeah... never mind.

Part of the reason you became a twoofer may be your inability to understand visual information reality.

Fixed that for you.

Air New Zealand Flight TE 109 (A DC-10) hit Mt Erebus at about a 14 degree angle, at about 500 km/h. No tail sections in sight. (http://www.archives.govt.nz/exhibitions/currentexhibitions/chch/images/pc-erebus-crashsite.jpg)

-Gumboot

Perhaps not tail, but there was a large section of fuselage still in approximately one piece, well at least recognisable. (http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/history/te9011.jpg)

Good point. Must mean there was no plane, according to some at least.

My uncle was one of the police officers that flew down to help recover bodies. I doubt he'd agree with anyone that claimed there was no plane.

[uk_dave]

This is an aerial image of the purported Flight 93 crash site in a field near Shankesville.
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7084/shankesville1aye8.png

In 1994 a U.S. Geological Survey captured this image of the same location.
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9067/aerial1994usgsry7.png

Other than wear 'n tear from 7 years of additional weathering, the only appreciable change was the addition of a center crater (bomb?).

What an amazing coincidence that Flight 93 aligned itself with an existing gouge in that field.

MM

Didn't Avery debunk this rubbish on LCF last year?

Have you not been paying attention MM?

[Miragememories]

Didn't Avery debunk this rubbish on LCF last year?

Have you not been paying attention MM?

Paying attention?

Very much so. I had a feeling the 1994 gouge was too simplistic an explanation and I figured the fastest way to find out was to hand it to you folks.

Thank you for your assistance.

MM

[beachnut]

Paying attention?

Very much so. I had a feeling the 1994 gouge was too simplistic an explanation and I figured the fastest way to find out was to hand it to you folks.

Thank you for your assistance.

MM
Does Dylan know you are not a mindless truther now?

[PhantomWolf]

Paying attention?

Very much so. I had a feeling the 1994 gouge was too simplistic an explanation and I figured the fastest way to find out was to hand it to you folks.

Thank you for your assistance.

MM

You mean like most Truthers you are far too lazy to anything like real research.

[Gravy]

Yup, this sounds like a person who's brimful of doubt:
Other than wear 'n tear from 7 years of additional weathering, the only appreciable change was the addition of a center crater (bomb?).

What an amazing coincidence that Flight 93 aligned itself with an existing gouge in that field.Truthers: the least competent people on planet Earth.

[leftysergeant]

The "gouge " is too small, too far from the woods turned at the wrong angle relative to the woods, and was present while dirt was being brought to the site. There is considerable relief visible along the left margin of the bare field. In the crash photo, the area is nearly level.

The lack of grass in the crater on the day of the crash indicates that it was formed proximal in time to the downing of the aircraft. That the soil on the down-range side is pushed up and the grass is unburned indicate that something moved under the soil to form it, and that the grass was not removed from thecrater by a controlled burn.

The gouge, you might also notive is almost circular. More consistant with fill being dumped there and bull dozed level.

[chris lz]

On september 2nd 1998 a Swissair MD-11 crashed into the sea off Novia Scottia:

Two more examples worth mentioning:

PSA flight 1771, probably the most shocking case of total devastation I’ve come across. At 650mph, it could well be the world record holder for impact speed:


Detective Bill Wammock is the first to arrive on the scene. He recalls 'nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.” http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-pa1771.shtml

Video footage:

http://www.kcoy.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoId=9622@video.kcoy.com&navCatId=15&rss=150

The crash scene (between :30 and :45) looks like someone sprinkled confetti on a hillside. It was reported by the Boston Globe (going from memory) the largest fragment was only six feet long.



Egyptair 990 was very similar to SR 111:


The small size of the aircraft parts found in both debris fields and the radar data
presented below are consistent with the airplane fragmenting upon impact with the water at
a high speed and steep impact angle. . . . .During the course of the underwater search and the subsequent recovery
operations, no intact bodies were recovered. The human remains that were recovered,
including bones, were small, fragmented pieces which precluded any visual identification
of the victim. . . . . . According to the NTSB’s estimate, this recovery effort yielded approximately 70percent of the wreckage by weight. As was the case with the debris that was recovered immediately after the accident, the wreckage consisted primarily of small, fragmented pieces. The largest intact piece or structure recovered was described by the NTSB as “a piece of structure almost 20 feet long.”
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/ea990/docket/Ex_13A.pdf . . . .
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/ea990/docket/ecaa_report.pdf

See also http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAB0201.pdf

[HL7442]

PSA 182 in '78, Aeromexico 498 in Aug 86, Northwest 255 Aug '87, Allegheny 853 Sept '69....etc etc etc so many examples.

[Jonnyclueless]

That's a lot of inside jobs....

[Gravy]

Two more examples worth mentioning:

PSA flight 1771, probably the most shocking case of total devastation I’ve come across. At 650mph, it could well be the world record holder for impact speed:Yes, that's the one where the guy's suicide note survived. Conspiracists say these things don't happen. The plane broke up in midair, though, and I wonder how much hit the ground intact.

[gumboot]

Although it was a mid air break up, PA103 is actually a good example to show them. They often yap about "where are the wings?" but the entire centre wing section of PA103 hit the ground intact (and only at "falling" speed, not "propelled" speed), yet nothing was left of it but a hole in the ground. (http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/europe/08/14/lockerbie.town/story.long.lockerbie.crater.jpg)

-Gumboot

[chris lz]

Yes, that's the one where the guy's suicide note survived. Conspiracists say these things don't happen. The plane broke up in midair, though, and I wonder how much hit the ground intact.


Good question. I recently asked it at airdisaster.com, but no one there knew the answer. Their report states this, but the NTSB summary, as well as a ground witness, stated it crashed intact. I suspect probably only a small portion separated, as it's hard to get 650mph with a major in-flight break up. If only the tail came off, that might be compatible with the witness, the FDR ending before impact, and the extremely high speed. I'd like to get the final report, but it's not online.