Soft Earth and Flight 93

[spooked911]

Officially, the rear two-thirds of UA93 were buried in the ground under this crater:

(photo was govt evidence at the Moussaoui trial)

We're talking about a rather large airplane here -- 155 feet long, 124 foot wingspan, 30 foot high tail, over 100 tons, officially going almost 600 mph.

You can see how big the crater is in comparison to the person standing next to the crater.

So here's the conundrum: if the ground was SOFT enough to allow 2/3 of the plane (100 feet length of plane and 100 feet of wings) to enter completely -- shouldn't the ground have been gouged out MUCH MORE extensively than this shallow crater that we see here?

Think of the energy being exerted in the official story, where a huge jet going 600 mph slams into the ground and explodes and burrows into the ground.

How does it leave this crater?

In my view, this basically proves that no Boeing 757 crashed in this crater.

[LARED]

1. How does anyone rationalize

how much dirt should have been gouged out? Do you have any evidence that something is amiss at the crater? What does 'soft soil' even mean. How is it quantified? Sand is "soft", mud is "soft", but both have very different properties.

[spooked911]

4. please...

is that the best you can come up with?

[AZCat]

7. What would you suggest he do?

Would you rather that he build a scale aircraft out of chicken wire and then throw it at the ground?

[LARED]

8. Just give me 5 million sq ft of chicken wire

The above photo, taken in 1944, appears to be an aerial view of a residential neighborhood, but it is actually a life-sized replica of a neighborhood, built upon millions of square feet of chicken wire, mounted atop tall poles and covering the entire Douglas Aircraft Company site at Santa Monica, California -- a suburb of Los Angeles. Following is an excerpt from a Los Angeles Times news article dated August 4, 2002:



http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/html/mshwdoug.htm

[AZCat]

10. Now THAT's cool.

It's too bad that, at the end of the war, they destroyed it.

[spooked911]

18. I agree, that is cool!

And goes to show the extent that people will go to to propagate a hoax!

[LARED]

20. Rather ironic (n/t)

[spooked911]

24. Isn't it? Amazing what people will do to fool people in wartime...

and to start war.

[LARED]

31. What's really amazing

is the time and effort spent modeling a fantasy.

At least in wartime there is a reason to take time to make a fake city over a critical defense entity. What I find most interesting is the amount of effort expended to perpetuate the obviously false theories driving the CT'er

[spooked911]

35. people come up with theories when the official explanation makes no sense

are you telling me that you believe that the rear two thirds of flight 93 is in that crater?

[LARED]

44. I believe flt 93 crashed in Shanksville

I (and everyone else) don't know how much of the plane wound up in the crater. I (and everyone else) have no clue how big or small the crater should have been.

Why is that hard for you to admit this?

[spooked911]

53. the official story is that the reason no large wreckage was found

for flight 93 is because most of the plane went in the crater.

One source, Jere Longman's "Among the Heroes" (that definitely promotes the official story) says the rear 2/3rds of the plane went into the ground at that crater site.

Are you disputing that?

I contend, and I think physics and common sense would support this-- that a 150 ft long plane going 600 mph is not not to leave such a small crater if indeed most of the plane is able to bury itself in soft ground.

Why is that hard for you to see this?

[William Seger]

56. I'm still waiting for those "physics" below....

I've found some interesting stuff on crater dynamics. How about you?

[LARED]

57. Do you understand the different between reality and fantasy?

DO you? The reality of this, is that flt 93 crashed at Shanksville. The precise amount of plane in the crater is not an important issue. If Jere Longman believe 2/3rd of the plane went into the ground, I will assume he has better sources than you or I.

What precise size the crater should have been is anyone guess. YOU DO AGREE THERE WAS A CRATER? Yes? You have no way to know what the size of the crater should have been. YOu can't even quantify what soft earth means? A guy that made two attempts at bunny cage models of the WTC thinking they represented some sort of useful model, has zero credibility to comment on physics or common sense.

[spooked911]

62. I know reality, and there is nothing wrong with modeling things.

As long as one knows the limitations of the models.

I say again, the crater is too small for 100 foot of fuselage to go in.

What evidence do you have to support the official story besides people who just say it happened that way?

[LARED]

69. Too translate - You have nothing other than your feelings

On the other hand there are hundreds of people that worked the site. Were actually there, and tell their stories, and unless I missed it exactly zero of them think something other that ftg 93 made the crater.

[spooked911]

73. Again-- do you think the bulk of the plane went in the ground under that crater?

Forget official statements. Look at the evidence.

Did 100 feet of Boeing 757 disappear into that crater?

[LARED]

81. Yes, I think a lot of the plane wound up in the crater

And based on photographic and testimony evidence lots wound up on the ground outside of the crater.

Does that answer your question

[spooked911]

84. I asked if you thought that 100 feet of fuselage could cram into that hole

more specifically-- as per the official story.

[LARED]

85. No, I think only 99 feet would fit.

Is there a point to this line of questioning?

[spooked911]

87. Yes. To make "you" think.

Whoever you are that spend so much time here fighting any hint that the official story is wrong.

[LARED]

88. OK, I admit it. I think the 100 feet did wind up in the crater

now what?

[spooked911]

94. You win the gullibility prize

yet again

[LARED]

95. One thing I absolutely love about this forum

is the irony.

World class 7/24/365 days per year.

[spooked911]

100. "7/24/365"

I guess you would know about that pretty well

[nebula]

2. 2/3 of the plane buried in this shallow crater?

And where is the all the debris?



The OCT is always good for a laugh, if nothing else.

:rofl:

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. They want everyone to deny

what they can see with their own eyes.

But of course, we never present any evidence. We just make this stuff up. :sarcasm:

[William Seger]

5. Right

There was hardly any debris, which proves there wasn't any plane, and debris was scattered for miles, which proves the plane was shot down. Makes sense to me.

[spooked911]

16. No doubt a bunch of junk was scattered around but where is the rest of the plane?

Seriously, do you think it is in that hole in the ground as the official story holds?

[William Seger]

30. Seriously?

Your speculations about what the crater should look like are clearly not based on anything but your own imagination, and there is absolutely no way you can claim to know what's under the ground there. You say "soft earth," but I don't see anything in your posts that indicate you understand that it was a stripmine site, and what that means. All of the dirt had been scrapped off to get at the coal underneath, and then the dirt was just dumped back in there. The ground was also wet at the time.

Over 1100 people worked on cleaning up that site, and certainly many more people saw the site and talked to people doing the cleanup. How many of those people think that no large airliner crashed there? Try to find even one.

Seriously, who do you think has more credibility: the people who cleaned up that mess and the people who identified the DNA of the passengers, or a guy who looked at a couple of pictures on the net (and who incidentally has already demonstrated some very peculiar and fallacious notions about physics)?

Seriously, who do you think you're kidding with posts like this?

[spooked911]

36. answer the question-- how did 100 feet of plane cram into that hole

without more ground being displaced?

If the ground was soft enough to allow so large of a plane in there, then it follows that either:
1) the crater would be much bigger
2) more plane parts would be sticking out of the hole

Use some common sense and stop trying so hard to support the official story.


Further-- are you telling me you personally talked to people who worked at the crater? If not, how do you know what they think?

In terms of body parts, they were probably planted. Particularly since mostly all they found were small pieces of skin.

[seatnineb]

41. Spooked ol buddy'...all he can do is drone on and on.....

If only an OTC could link to something like this



All 117 passengers and six crew members on board the Faucett Airlines jet liner died Thursday night when the plane, apparently after bursting into flames in flight, crashed into the barren, rocky region. Workers have removed more than 50 bodies so far, but all, they say, are unrecognizably burned. The plane's flight recorders were recovered, but have yet to be analyzed.



www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/peru_crash/12p/index.html - 6k

[William Seger]

45. Seat ol' buddy, I posted pics of airplane debris at the site

The only "droning" going on here is "I dont' see what I think I ought to see."

[seatnineb]

61. Oh yeah...the debris that fell from the plane BEFORE it crashed....

Residents of nearby Indian Lake reported seeing debris falling from the jetliner as it overflew the area shortly before crashing.
(Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 9/14/01)

[William Seger]

72. LOL, my exact point

No debris = faked
Debris scattered for miles = shot down
What would "just right" look like to you guys?

[seatnineb]

80. Is that the best you got?...have some more.....

I guess in OTC land...........debris falls from a plane BEFORE it crashes....

Jim Stop reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_47536.html

[spooked911]

63. Airplane debris?

There were far too few parts too account for a Boeing 757 crash and you know it.

Do you think 100 feet of fuselage crammed in that crater or NOT???

[William Seger]

75. really?

> There were far too few parts too account for a Boeing 757 crash and you know it.

Really? How would I know that looking at a few pics on the net? You must be a Remote Viewer.

> Do you think 100 feet of fuselage crammed in that crater or NOT???

Yes, I think a significant amount of debris could be under the dirt, absolutely. Maybe you didn't quite understand why I mentioned the part about that being a reclaimed stripmine and the dirt being wet; but yes, at that speed, I believe most of the plane could end up there and it would not produce the lunar crater you imagine. The plane was moving fast enough to have a huge amount of kinetic energy, but not so fast that it would produce the unabsorbable shock waves necessary to make a large crater in that kind of soil.

[spooked911]

79. I meant the pictures show too few parts for a Boeing 757

Yes, I think a significant amount of debris could be under the dirt, absolutely. Maybe you didn't quite understand why I mentioned the part about that being a reclaimed stripmine and the dirt being wet; but yes, at that speed, I believe most of the plane could end up there and it would not produce the lunar crater you imagine.

I never said lunar crater. I was just expecting something larger than this:


The plane was moving fast enough to have a huge amount of kinetic energy, but not so fast that it would produce the unabsorbable shock waves necessary to make a large crater in that kind of soil.

Uh... yeah. Sure.

Do you really believe that or did it just sound good when you wrote it?

[vincent_vega_lives]

92. Why do you think the crater would have been bigger? (n/t)

[spooked911]

119. Read the original post. I think it is clear.

[William Seger]

43. Common sense

> If the ground was soft enough to allow so large of a plane in there, then it follows that either:
1) the crater would be much bigger
2) more plane parts would be sticking out of the hole

"It follows" from what, please? "Common sense?" All I can see in your posts is that "it follows" from your own assumptions about crater dynamics. Do you know more about crater dynamics than you do about basic impact dynamics, or conservation of momentum, or scaling structural strength in a model, or any of the other physics topics you've expounded on recently? Excuse me, but I ask that because there was a lot of nonsense in those posts, not common sense. But if you do know something about crater dynamics, a proper argument would involve a discussion of various types, why you believe this crash fits a particular type, and a calculation or approximation of crater size using some empirical formula appropriate for the type. What do we get instead? A bunch of hand waving. And what is it you are trying to "prove" with all this hand waving? Something that certainly appears to be accepted as absolute fact by people who actually worked on cleaning up the site.

> Further-- are you telling me you personally talked to people who worked at the crater? If not, how do you know what they think?

Nope, I made no such claim; I'm suggesting that you do some research and try to find just one person who worked on the cleanup who agrees with you. But I have read a couple of articles written by people who, in fact, went to Shanksville specifically to do what I'm suggesting you try to do: try to find people who disagreed with the "official story." Both of them reported that, while there seem to be a fair number of people there think the plane was shot down, they were unable to find a single person who doubts that a large plane crashed there. In fact, both reported that the locals have a great deal of hostility to those kinds of speculations. And in fact, both articles reported numerous conversations with people who were directly involved throughout the cleanup, and there was not a shred of doubt in their minds that a large plane crashed there. No doubt whatsoever.

Against those reports, we have you -- a person with a demonstrated limited ability to visualize mechanical processes -- looking at a couple pictures on the net and claiming the crater doesn't look like what your "common sense" would expect.

So here it is, Spooky: Put up or shut up. Go do some research on crater dynamics and come back with something resembling an actual argument. Now, I confess I don't remember much about what little I've read on the subject myself. But just for you, I think I'll do a little research myself, since I'm sure the topic will come again whether or not you respond to my request, so I will be prepared to debate it with you.

[spooked911]

68. All I want is your statement that you think 100 feet of fuselage are underneath the dirt

in that crater.

And if 100 feet of fuselage could plow completely into soft earth, do you think that only a 10 x 20 foot crater would be produced?

If that makes perfect sense to you, CONGRATULATIONS, I guess you will believe anything the government says.

[William Seger]

77. Yes, it could

In fact, it did. QED.

[mirandapriestly]

6. That is it exactly DYEW

What we can see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears, we are supposed to deny because the powers that be wouldn't lie to us.

[Mist]

9. Hey, Spooked, you know everything changed on 911, including physics! nt

[spooked911]

11. kick

[greyl]

12. Replying to post 5 would have kicked the thread, too, ya know. ;) nt

[spooked911]

17. sorry, I was busy and just didn't want the thread to get to far down

[mhatrw]

13. Not only that, but somehow the impact was supposedly explosive

enough to fling metal parts and bones pieces over record distances of more than 1 mile and a half, but 75% to 80% of the plane and the soft earth expelled by the impact somehow went right back into the crater.

[nebula]

14. Then where is the other 1/3 of the plane?

Don't tell me, the Tail Section Fairy got to it first?

[spooked911]

15. Another link to the picture

[KJF]

19. Your argument doesn't work

You're just saying "Come on, you gotta be shittin' me", but, as far as I can tell, you have no experience in airplane crashes, so why should I believe you?

If you could find a similar crash/series of similar crashes that looked different, then you would have something. At the moment you have Scottish Football Association.

[spooked911]

22. There IS no other crash like this one.

In any case, it is common sense that the force the ram a 100 foot long section of fuselage into the ground would create a deeper crater.

It is ridiculous to deny the crater isn't damn strange-- at minimum.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. If there IS no other crash like this one...

Why would anybody trust what their "common" sense would tell them about it?

[KJF]

27. There are mid-sized airliners that have crashed straight down

There was one in Colorado I think, and the Valujet one in Florida. Did they not produce similar craters?

Yes, the crater looks strange at first glance to the layman, but so what? I don't think common sense supports the argument you make. Plenty of stuff looks wierd to the layman, but is actually true.

[spooked911]

37. The Valujet crash was in the everglades and so there was no crater

the plane debris "disappeared" under the water.

I bet you anything the crash in Colorado produced large plane parts-- large sections of plane debris-- not just a couple of small pieces of fuselage and a smashed engine. I also very much doubt there was a perfect plane-shaped crater.

[KJF]

48. Valujet did not produce a crater?

I searched "Valujet" and "crater" and got 915 hits. For example, CNN says:

'There's no airplane left'

For the first time, divers Tuesday entered the crater in the Florida Everglades created when ValuJet Flight 592 plunged to earth. Afterwards, they said they found little.

"There is no aircraft in the pit, only fragment pieces," said Paul Toy, one of the Metro-Dade Police divers. He said the largest piece he found was about the size of 3- by 6-foot table.

...

The crater is 175 feet long, 60 feet wide, and about 6 feet deep.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/21/valujet.pm/index.html

Not a perfect match, but not bad. There definitely was a crater.

[spooked911]

51. crater was under water-- quite a bit different

also quite a bit BIGGER

[DoYouEverWonder]

39. Valujet went down in a swamp

They had to use boats to get to the site. Yet, they still recovered most if not all of the bodies, and there was enough of the plane recovered to do a rebuild.

Shanksville was solid enough for people to walk around and drive vehicles up to. Where's the plane?

BTW: What altitude was Flight 93 flying when it crashed? Some reports say they were very high up but eyewitnesses say the plane was flying very low before it crashed.

[bushatbooker]

21. 65%? I thought it was 80%?

Which makes it all the more absurd! All the excavation photos I've seen show them just excavating dirt! Oh, and one planted engine.

[spooked911]

23. Either way, it is absurd.

Jere Longman ("Among th Heroes") says the rear two-thirds accordioned into the crater.

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. rear two thirds, and much of one wing

THAT would make sense.

[spooked911]

66. would it? Really?

[spooked911]

25. check out the burn pattern

No freaking way the ground was left pristine like that by a crashing jumbojet.

NO FREAKING WAY.

Geez, could it be anymore obvious this thing is a hoax?

[Big Pappa]

28. Then please

tell me who made that hole and dumped all of these smashed wheels and other a/c parts in the area.

[rman]

32. Who made the hole doesn't matter initially.

What matters is that the hole could realistically be made in some other way besides having a plane crash there. Who did that can only be revealed by a formal investigation. It's not that you first have to prove everything before an investigation can start - the point of investigations is to find evidence. Usually an investigation is started because of suspicions.

Plane debris in the area can easily be explained by the plane being blown up (hit by a missile) while in the air.

[spooked911]

34. the important thing is the official story is a complete lie

but in terms of who did it-- probably a covert operations team who pulled off the rest of 9/11.

[G Hawes]

29. Saying "no freaking way" even in all capitals

does not a valid argument make.

Can you please elaborate and explain why you think there is "no freaking way" that the photographic evidence that you've cited can not be legitimate?

[spooked911]

33. common sense is all you need.

I said "NO FREAKING WAY" because I got exasperated with the bullsh*t and the bullsh*tters who refuse to see the bullsh*t.

[G Hawes]

54. Really? If that's the case,

I guess people who study for several years to obtain the knowledge, expertise, and degrees in all of that complicated mathiness and sciencey stuff to become crash scene investigators and scientists and the like, should just save their money, forget about all of that edumacashun silliness. After all, they could just look at photos on the internet, apply "common sense" to uncommon events, and voila - they could be, well, just as good as you at this crash scene analysis thing! I'm sure that is something they aspire to.

[jschurchin]

38. He is not saying it's not..........

not a legitimate picture of a hole in the ground. But was it the site of a 757 crashing nose first at approximately 450 knots? If it is, then where is the wreckage?

This is a link to crash photographs from US Air flight 427 that crashed near Pittsburgh in 1994.
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/427-585.html

It also went nose first into the ground but at ONLY 260 knots. Notice, if you will, all the wreckage. This LOOKS like a plane crash. There is shit everywhere. This is what Shanksville SHOULD have looked like.

Where are the pictures of the wreckage? Is this a LEGITIMATE picture of a hole in the ground? Uh, yep. Is it a 757 plane crash site? Maybe, but I really don't think so. JMHO.

[vincent_vega_lives]

42. Anoying pop ups on htat site

260 knots was about half the speed of flight 93 at impact. It hit at a shallow angel, rotated 90 degrees on it's side IIRC, making the impact crater rather shallow and the debris field directional.

There is plenty of debris, some of large size, just scattered over a swath in the direction the aircraft was going.

[nebula]

46. Where is this 'plenty of debris' you speak of?

Your imagination?



Do you have any photo evidence, or are we suppose to take your word for it?

[vincent_vega_lives]

50. You can take my word for it

or you can look for your self.

[jschurchin]

47. Got any photographs Vince?

You know, that show all of this debris. There should be a lot of debris Vince. A 757 is a rather large aircraft, and we all know aircraft only "vaporize" at the pentagon, so how bout those photo's?

[vincent_vega_lives]

49. Got a fricken eyes?

aint to hard to find.

[spooked911]

52. so you think 2/3 of a Boeing 757 went in that crater?

The crater about 50ft long x 10ft wide x 6 ft deep?

Nice of the plane to cover itself with dirt like that.

[vincent_vega_lives]

58. Debris went everywhere

One engine was destroyed on impact, the other went 300m in the direction of the crash, debris was rendered into small pieces by the high kinetic energy impact, some divited into the ground with great momentum and others carried into the trees, which show signs of severe stripping, and charing from the fireball from the vaporized fuel.

When projectiles enter the ground at high velocity the earth they displaced is uplifted violently, some displaced to form the crater, but much redistributes back into the crater.

Remember this is NOT a BOMB crater or else you would have seen a MUCH bigger crater as the high velocity expansion of gas displaces earth readily.

[spooked911]

65. So you are saying 100 feet of plane went into that hole and covered itself up perfectly?

and you're saying a plane over 100 tons slams into the ground at 600mph and only makes a 10 x 20 crater?

Weren't you the one who argued some time back that at the pentagon, a Boeing 757 was even more destructive than a cruise missile?

So at the pentagon, a Boeing 757 is more destructive than a cruise missile, but here in soft earth a Boeing 757 just makes a 10 x 20 crater?

Why are you fighting SO HARD to protect the official story anyway?

Can't you at least admit it is weird that the plane officially disappared into the crater?

[vincent_vega_lives]

70. Nope cuz that didnt happen

and you're saying a plane over 100 tons slams into the ground at 600mph and only makes a 10 x 20 crater?

Nope 20ft wide x 50ft long x 15ft deep are the estimates I've seen.


Weren't you the one who argued some time back that at the pentagon, a Boeing 757 was even more destructive than a cruise missile?

So at the pentagon, a Boeing 757 is more destructive than a cruise missile, but here in soft earth a Boeing 757 just makes a 10 x 20 crater?

No just the OPPOSITE.

Why are you fighting SO HARD to protect the official story anyway?

Because I have a very low tolerance for stupidity.

Can't you at least admit it is weird that the plane officially disappared into the crater?

If that happened it would be weird. But that didnt happen.

[spooked911]

74. What didn't happen? You DON'T think the plane disappeared in the ground?

What DID happen?

[vincent_vega_lives]

90. I have explained what I think happened

but its like talking to a wall.

[spooked911]

99. Tell me about it. Nonetheless...

However, I said the official story was that 2/3 of the plane went in the hole, and you said that DIDN'T happen.

Now I ask you: what DID happen?

[vincent_vega_lives]

102. I refuse to take you seriously anymore. (n/t)

[spooked911]

105. the official story is that the rear 2/3 of the plane accordioned into the ground

you still haven't told me if you believe that.

It's okay if you don't believe that. I would have more respect for you, in fact.

:)

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. Check your dimensions

State trooper, Tom Spallone said the plane was still smoldering at 12:30. He said officials were trying to keep people from scene and confirmed that there are no survivors. He said the "debris field spread over an area size of a football field, maybe two footballs fields." The impact of the crash was so severe that the biggest piece of debris he has seen there is no bigger than 2 feet.<6>

The plane left a crater 20 feet wide and 15 feet deep, churning up chunks of deep brown earth and scorching trees in the nearby woods. State Police sealed off a 15-square-mile area around the crash site as a crime scene. All that was visible to reporters escorted near the site were metal plane parts that glinted in the late-afternoon sun. "The biggest pieces were no larger than a phone book," said Pennsylvania State Police Cmdr. Frank Monaco.<4>

[spooked911]

64. Great! It's even smaller and more ridiculous.

Though in fact estimates for the crater size were all over the place.

[vincent_vega_lives]

71. check your figures

a 15 foot deep x 20 foot wide crater is not the same as a 6ft deep x 10ft wide one. Thats a LOT of dirt displaced.

[spooked911]

78. no way the picture shows a 15 foot deep crater-- it doesn't even look 10 feet deep

the center of the crater is just to the right of that person:

[G Hawes]

82. No way, because you said so?

What qualifies you to make that determination? All you've offered so far is "because I said so" but you haven't offered anything to suggest that you have the requisite knowledge or expertise to quantify the depth, width or length of the crater, nor any knowledge or expertise in photographic analysis, nor any knowledge or expertise in crash scene investigation. Yet, you simply wave your hands and dismiss the evidence of the hundreds of professionals who were on the site and the thousand-plus volunteers who were on the site, as though you, by looking at a couple of pictures on the internet and ignoring everything that doesn't fit into your conspiracy world view, know more than they do.

My mother would call that astounding chutzpah.

[spooked911]

83. Look at the picture

There is a person standing there next to the crater. Does that person look like a midget? I don't think so.

Let's reasonably assume the person is 5 1/2 feet tall. The crater is only slightly deeper than that person is tall.

[vincent_vega_lives]

89. I'll take the word of a State Trooper who was there

over you looking at a picture any day.

[spooked911]

93. Puh-leeze.

crtaer size estimates were all over the place. People can be notoriously bad at estimatng sizes.

Here we have a clear picture.

[vincent_vega_lives]

96. HERE we have a clear picture?

Yer joking right?

that crater can be anywhere from 10 to 15 feet deep based on my estimate. Hard to tell.

[greyl]

97. Is he joking? Quite possibly, yes.

[vincent_vega_lives]

98. Huh

Perhaps he's not a fucking moron after all?

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jschurchin]

86. Every place I looked

got too many pop-up ad's Vince. Help a brother out!!!!

[William Seger]

55. The photos in post #5 are from Killtown's site

He's got more; you can't find them?

How much debris do YOU think went into the ground, how much got scattered around like those photos, and much is "missing"? Oh, and how did you arrive at your estimate?

[spooked911]

76. I've looked at all the pictures he has. The official story is that 2/3 of the plane

went into the ground under that crater.

That is why, officially, there was so little LARGE debris near the "crash site".

Supposedly the rear two-thirds of the plane-- 100 feet of fuselage-- crumpled into the ground.

Are you disputing the official story?

[vincent_vega_lives]

40. Burn was directional with the momentum of the aircraft

As one would expect. Check out the trees.

[spooked911]

67. so huge flames in the crater don't singe the grass one foot away?

right...

[vincent_vega_lives]

91. how do you figure? (n/t)

[spooked911]

101. did you SEE the pictures I posted in this thread?

I am curious though-- how do you visualize the plane came down?

Straight? At an angle?

You think it plowed into the ground, right?

Shouldn't there have been some deflection of fuel and flame backwards?

How did all the fuel go forward and none backward?

[vincent_vega_lives]

103. I have posted this numerous times

I saw the computer animation based on input from the FDR. IIRC Flt 93 was moving at high speed at relative low altitude, rolled violently, and impacted the ground at aprox 90 degree roll angle and a shallow angle of attack. Cant recall if it was nose or wing first, but nearly simultaneous.

What you don't understand is that at 500kts momentum and the shallow angle of impact will result in ALL the vaporized fuel going in the direction of the crash. LOOK AT THE TREES.

[spooked911]

104. questions

1) why isn't there blowback of fuel?

2) did the plane go in the ground or not?

3) if it went in the ground, what angle did it go in? You're saying shallow? But if it didn't go in the ground, where is the major debris?

[vincent_vega_lives]

106. answers

1) Why would there be?

2) yes. where else?

3) Not sure what angle 20-30 degrees? Only "major debris" to suvrive a 500 kt crash would be the engines. Most everthing else would be rendered into peices smaller than a shoebox (few exceptions as seen in the pics).

[spooked911]

107. I am asking about the ANGLE because I do not understand how

the plane could impact and go in the ground and only spray fuel and debris forward

20-30 degrees is quite shallow and it is very hard to see the how the plane would leave the imprint seen at the crater at that angle. The crater would tend to indicate a 70-90 angle.

Although like much of the crash, estimates for the angle of the plane vary widely-- 45 degree to 90 degree. I haven't heard 20-30 degrees before.

[vincent_vega_lives]

108. No need for estimates

The angle is known, just not by me or you. It can be calculated from data from the FDR.

[spooked911]

109. what angle do you think the plane was such that the fuel only blew forward?

Judging by the crater imprint, it can't have come down at less than a 45 degree angle otherwise we would have seen more skidding.

At a 45 degree angle, stuff should have been blown backwards.

It still doesn't make sense.

[spooked911]

111. How did the plane only spew fuel forward upon crashing?

Particularly given the angle the plane had to come in to make a crater like that.

Why didn't any fuel splash backwards?

[spooked911]

113. Does anyone else see the conundrum here?

If the plane goes into a hole, how can it only spray fuel and debris in one direction?

[spooked911]

115. honestly, I simply do not understand how the official story makes sense

at all

[petgoat]

117. I agree that Shanksville looks suspicious. The lack of fuel

in the water table, the lack of photos of wreckage until years after the fact,
the discovery of one engine in a farm pond where it could have been planted
before or after, the failure to document the path of said engine which should
have bounced a couple of times, the absence of the other engine.

[spooked911]

118. As far as I can tell, there still is no coherent explanation for how a Boeing 757

1) crashed in the crater shown below
2) didn't burn the grass right next to it

[bushatbooker]

120. What is the impression made from?

The impression to the left of the "not charred" box? Looks like a drainage ditch? Where are the deep wing and tail impressions?

[TheWraith]

112. You're looking at it from an inaccurate perspective.

The idea propagated by many CT sources is that the plane somehow suspiciously managed to crash into the ground and bury itself intact. The reality is that there's no way this could happen even in the softest soil in the world. At the speed the plane crashed at, even water is effectively as hard as concrete. So the plane "buried itself" in the sense that most of its components would have ended up in the same crater that was gouged out by the force of plane's impact. It most certainly did not penetrate the soil in any sort of intact form, as evidenced by the fact that no components were found deeper than 19 feet or so below ground level, when as you point out, the plane was a hundred feet long.

[spooked911]

114. one source said the rear 2/3rds of the fuselage accordioned into the ground

yes, IF such a thing could happen, the plane would be shredded.

I maintain still that so much fuselage could not have gone in the ground and left a crater this size-- even if the fuselage was ripped to bits

[spooked911]

116. Remeber that officially, the black boxes were found 15 and 25 feet underground

and those are in the REAR of the plane