IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
How The Shanksville Crater Was Made, Cruise missiles at 10 degree trajectories

yankee451
post Jul 6 2013, 12:03 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



At trajectories of 10 degrees or less, two cruise missiles with 12x60 inch dense-metal penetrating warheads are the most likely suspects for the crater in Shanksville. Please watch this 8-minute video which explains the concept.

http://youtu.be/MQTNy6Jb26A

I have contracted an engineer to supply a finite element analysis of this hypothesis which I hope will be completed soon.


Steve De'ak
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 7 2013, 11:19 AM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I thought it was here at PFT, but maybe it was elsewhere, that somebody went back to commercially available satellite photos and discovered that the crater at Shanksville was actually there in the several years BEFORE 2001?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Jul 7 2013, 11:41 AM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 7 2013, 07:19 AM) *
I thought it was here at PFT, but maybe it was elsewhere, that somebody went back to commercially available satellite photos and discovered that the crater at Shanksville was actually there in the several years BEFORE 2001?



That claim has been repeatedly debunked.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 8 2013, 10:30 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



I'm not an NPT advocate but these links may be useful.

The first is a breakdown of independently gathered eyewitness testimony by Dom DiMaggio (which includes corroboration of Susan McElwain's testimony):

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=532

And an excellent piece by "rSpieker" including a breakdown of the land make up where this "crater" is located (unfortunately his image domain has closed down but he's also the "numbers guy" on the issue)


http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1697

Hope that helps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Jul 8 2013, 12:59 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 8 2013, 06:30 AM) *
I'm not an NPT advocate but these links may be useful.

The first is a breakdown of independently gathered eyewitness testimony by Dom DiMaggio (which includes corroboration of Susan McElwain's testimony):

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=532

And an excellent piece by "rSpieker" including a breakdown of the land make up where this "crater" is located (unfortunately his image domain has closed down but he's also the "numbers guy" on the issue)


http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1697

Hope that helps.


Thanks. I am well aware of the eye witness accounts, but I'm dealing with the scene of the crime - and I provided the makeup of the soil as part of the detail required for the engineering model. This project deals with the available evidence of the crater, the soil makeup, the characteristics of the missiles and whether or not the warheads can account for the crater. It also deals with whether a jet could account for the crater. If it is shown one could, where the other could not, then the eye witness accounts need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 8 2013, 05:00 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Jul 8 2013, 05:59 PM) *
Thanks. I am well aware of the eye witness accounts, but I'm dealing with the scene of the crime - and I provided the makeup of the soil as part of the detail required for the engineering model. This project deals with the available evidence of the crater, the soil makeup, the characteristics of the missiles and whether or not the warheads can account for the crater. It also deals with whether a jet could account for the crater. If it is shown one could, where the other could not, then the eye witness accounts need to be taken with a grain of salt.


The witnesses describe a flyover, or at the very least fatally contradict the official trajectory and as such, the physical nature of the (ridiculous) so called "impact crater". Some of them, including the witness Susan McElwain quoted in your video, corroborate a drone type device in the area just before the explosion. There's no way you can ignore eyewitness accounts.

An aircraft being seen in the area doesn't contradict your theory.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Jul 8 2013, 05:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Jul 8 2013, 07:16 PM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 8 2013, 01:00 PM) *
The witnesses describe a flyover, or at the very least fatally contradict the official trajectory and as such, the physical nature of the (ridiculous) so called "impact crater". Some of them, including the witness Susan McElwain quoted in your video, corroborate a drone type device in the area just before the explosion. There's no way you can ignore eyewitness accounts.

An aircraft being seen in the area doesn't contradict your theory.


I stand corrected. I assumed you were referring to the witnesses who claim to have seen the plane impact. My apologies.

Obviously I am not ignoring the eyewitness accounts, as I include McElwain's in my video. I am simply trying to ascertain what the most-likely cause of the crater was. My consultant is supposedly modeling the expected results of a plane crash too, and although we will never be able state exactly what happened, we should be able to come to a "most-likely" suspect.

This post has been edited by yankee451: Jul 8 2013, 07:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 8 2013, 08:00 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Jul 9 2013, 12:16 AM) *
I stand corrected. I assumed you were referring to the witnesses who claim to have seen the plane impact. My apologies.

Obviously I am not ignoring the eyewitness accounts, as I include McElwain's in my video. I am simply trying to ascertain what the most-likely cause of the crater was. My consultant is supposedly modeling the expected results of a plane crash too, and although we will never be able state exactly what happened, we should be able to come to a "most-likely" suspect.


No problem — Looking forward to your findings thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nonflier
post Jan 26 2014, 11:10 PM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 33
Joined: 13-January 14
Member No.: 7,664



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Jul 7 2013, 10:41 AM) *
That claim has been repeatedly debunked.


Can you explain what exactly you mean has been debunked? The 1994 USGS aerial photo showing the gash? In other words, the dark scar that it was implied would correspond to the wing impacts. If that scar was there before, doesn't that make your two missile hypothesis even less likely. The USGS photo should be provable if it isn't made up. Did you check for it being valid? Or what evidence do you have that it is not valid? I do understand and assume the round crater in the center is new.

And if there were two missiles, as you postulate, then are you saying they collided head on to form the round crater (as demonstrated in your video), or that each missile was fired in turn, one at at time? The former would imply two planes carrying missiles, or could both be launched from one plane?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Jan 28 2014, 05:00 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



Nice video! If a missile made the gouges that represent the wings, the weeds would not still be standing inside the gouge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 1 2014, 11:42 AM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (Art @ Jan 28 2014, 01:00 PM) *
Nice video! If a missile made the gouges that represent the wings, the weeds would not still be standing inside the gouge.


Not this canard again.

A detonation sent dirt clumps in all directions! Clumps of soil with long grass tend to roll into ditches grass-side up, as any ditch-digger knows. As the warheads burrowed under ground they undermined the grassy soil at the edge of the gash, making the soil on the edges appear to be growing from the ditch, but the topsoil there was just following the contour of the undermined soil beneath it.

Next time you dig a ditch in grassy soil, scoop out the soil beneath the surface and notice how the turf follows the contours of the undermined soil, and then toss a couple dirt clumps with long grass attached to them into the ditch and see how often the soil lands grass-side down.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 1 2014, 12:17 PM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (nonflier @ Jan 26 2014, 07:10 PM) *
Can you explain what exactly you mean has been debunked? The 1994 USGS aerial photo showing the gash? In other words, the dark scar that it was implied would correspond to the wing impacts. If that scar was there before, doesn't that make your two missile hypothesis even less likely. The USGS photo should be provable if it isn't made up. Did you check for it being valid? Or what evidence do you have that it is not valid? I do understand and assume the round crater in the center is new.





QUOTE (nonflier @ Jan 26 2014, 07:10 PM) *
And if there were two missiles, as you postulate, then are you saying they collided head on to form the round crater (as demonstrated in your video), or that each missile was fired in turn, one at at time? The former would imply two planes carrying missiles, or could both be launched from one plane?


The first missile didn't detonate and acted like a large bullet would, burying under ground. If it was me I would have mounted an electronic targeting beacon within the first warhead and targeted the second one from the opposite direction. At a slight trajectory the second missile would pass over the first warhead (buried under ground) and detonate a split-second later. They could both be launched from one plane but witnesses reported multiple military jet sightings.

There were more than two missiles launched, two for the main crater, but something detonated in air burst in the trees. Note the trees behind the posing firemen.



Note the tree split right down the middle, indicating a detonation near the top of the tree from the other side:



This post has been edited by yankee451: Feb 1 2014, 12:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Feb 2 2014, 01:31 PM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



Canard? I was not looking at your "clump," I was looking at the dried grass that are on the sides on the ditch. Here is another picture of grass/weeds that are in the ravine.
Also, no one saw two missiles nor was there two clouds of smoke from the explosions. Like I said, nice video but there is no evidence of two explosions.

Smoke from Shanksville.

Smoke from two explosions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 2 2014, 05:33 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 2 2014, 09:31 AM) *
Canard? I was not looking at your "clump," I was looking at the dried grass that are on the sides on the ditch. Here is another picture of grass/weeds that are in the ravine.


From my post to you:
QUOTE
As the warheads burrowed under ground they undermined the grassy soil at the edge of the gash, making the soil on the edges appear to be growing from the ditch, but the topsoil there was just following the contour of the undermined soil beneath it.

Next time you dig a ditch in grassy soil, scoop out the soil beneath the surface and notice how the turf follows the contours of the undermined soil, and then toss a couple dirt clumps with long grass attached to them into the ditch and see how often the soil lands grass-side down.


Additionally you can see the turf has folded over the edge of the newly created gash because the grass is not growing straight up/

QUOTE (Art @ Feb 2 2014, 09:31 AM) *
Also, no one saw two missiles nor was there two clouds of smoke from the explosions. Like I said, nice video but there is no evidence of two explosions.


Sure there is. The size of the central crater roughly matches the size of craters made by similarly sized bombs (about 240 lbs), and the smoking trees, specifically the tree trunk split down the middle indicate something detonated there.

Why would you expect people to see both or all the missiles? And how do you know the Shanksville photo is genuine? It is a photo of an ordnance blast, but other locals dispute it's authenticity and other descriptions of the crash scene don't match the photographs taken immediately after the alleged crash.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Feb 2 2014, 07:36 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



I can see grass that is vertical in the ravine. I have read witness accounts of finding shrapnel in the trees. The force of the explosion was directed toward the trees. That is why the trees are burnt and the the dry grass on the other end of the ravine remain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 2 2014, 09:47 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 2 2014, 03:36 PM) *
I can see grass that is vertical in the ravine. I have read witness accounts of finding shrapnel in the trees. The force of the explosion was directed toward the trees. That is why the trees are burnt and the the dry grass on the other end of the ravine remain.


The projectile being only 12 inches wide created a larger version of a scar a bullet would make at a similar trajectory.

The 12x60 inch warhead pushed the soil away from the warhead in a conical shape in the direction of travel, and after it buried deeply enough into the ground the topsoil above would be undermined and fall into the trench left by the warhead. The nap of the grass that overlaps the edge of the ravine changes in relation to the slope of the gash, an indication that the soil beneath it was scooped out by the projectile as it burrowed beneath the surface. The long vertical grass in the foreground is just that, in the foreground, and the vertical grass in the trench is attached to sod that fell back into the trench after the warhead passed. This is why there is no vertical grass seen in the shallower sections of the trench.



Wally Miller described the cockpit impact exploding like shrapnel. Are you saying the electronics, plastic and aluminum in the cockpit turned to shrapnel that split the tree and set fire to the woods? Wouldn't the tree be split on the other side in that case? What was in the cockpit that could set fire to the woods?



This post has been edited by yankee451: Feb 2 2014, 09:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Feb 3 2014, 02:09 AM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 2 2014, 09:47 PM) *
The long vertical grass in the foreground is just that, in the foreground, and the vertical grass in the trench is attached to sod that fell back into the trench after the warhead passed. This is why there is no vertical grass seen in the shallower sections of the trench.

Wally Miller described the cockpit impact exploding like shrapnel. Are you saying the electronics, plastic and aluminum in the cockpit turned to shrapnel that split the tree and set fire to the woods? Wouldn't the tree be split on the other side in that case? What was in the cockpit that could set fire to the woods?

The picture below clearly shows vertical strands of grass in the ravine. The evidence shows that a missile hit that field. But there is no evidence that indicates that two missiles hit the field. The ravine had to have been there before 9/11 because the grass grew in the ravine that is supposed to look like an airplane wing.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 3 2014, 03:03 AM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 2 2014, 10:09 PM) *
The picture below clearly shows vertical strands of grass in the ravine. The evidence shows that a missile hit that field. But there is no evidence that indicates that two missiles hit the field. The ravine had to have been there before 9/11 because the grass grew in the ravine that is supposed to look like an airplane wing.


QUOTE
Not long after the crash, Escherich was on the scene. Emergency personnel were only just arriving. Undetected, he grabbed his camera and set up his tripod and fired off 10 shots before being asked to leave.
“I was about 150 yards away from where the plane hit,” he said. “But then I did as they said. I packed up and left.”
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/witnesses.html


At that distance he would have plenty of grass in the foreground between the camera and the gash. Zoom in and follow the tall grass down and you'll see they are growing in front of the gash.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 3 2014, 10:24 AM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Yankee

Just for the record, Wally Miller said that he could find nothing that remotely resembled a crashed Boeing with pax. Nada.

After the feds showed up and asked him to become a team player, he changed his story.

Which do you think is true and accurate? First statement or second?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 3 2014, 12:46 PM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 3 2014, 06:24 AM) *
Yankee

Just for the record, Wally Miller said that he could find nothing that remotely resembled a crashed Boeing with pax. Nada.

After the feds showed up and asked him to become a team player, he changed his story.

Which do you think is true and accurate? First statement or second?


I think he's part of the fraud.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th November 2019 - 10:09 PM