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 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
How The Shanksville Crater Was Made, Cruise missiles at 10 degree trajectories

yankee451
post Feb 5 2014, 09:48 PM
Post #41





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



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 5 2014, 07:35 AM) *
Your theory is not only not plausible. it is not possible.


No, you just don't know what IS possible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 5 2014, 10:21 PM
Post #42





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



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 5 2014, 07:35 AM) *
If that was true, the missile would have exploded in the trees.


Ta DA!!!

And yet a missile DID explode in the trees!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 6 2014, 09:53 AM
Post #43





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE
Well I say your inability to even consider the option is proof that it was more likely to succeed. Such incredulity is what 'big liars' count on.

If I wouldn't consider the option I wouldn't try to discuss it with you, don't you think?

QUOTE
Read the below from a now removed Boeing press release:
"After experiencing shock loads as high as 12,000 Gs...traveled another half mile down range"

Now, for the starter and purpose of credibility evaluation try please calculate what the warhead's impact speed would need to be to travel "half mile" after experiencing "12,000Gs" deceleration - just for example: if my calculator works properly it means a deceleration of a 60in/1524 mm long warhead from say 300 m/s (AGM158 is subsonic, isn't it?) to zero at less than 3 milimeters?...does the warhead on top of other supernatural cappabilities teleport itself through the targets and beyond? laughing1.gif

QUOTE
First of all, they used a freaking excavator to unearth the stuff. Don't you think they'd be more careful if they actually thought there were any jet parts that might be damaged by heavy equipment?

Nobody sober would expect jet parts undammaged after striking ground at 250 m/s. What an excavator can do to it on top of that?

QUOTE
"don't you think an excavator is a little heavy-handed for unearthing body parts?

I've seen a photo unearthing jet engine, I haven't seen it was unearthing body parts. But looks you have loads of insider information. Tell us more.

QUOTE
Clearly they knew there were no parts in there and they simply used an excavator to dig into the ditch, plant the plane parts and snap some photos.

I love this people who see clearly.

QUOTE
Furthermore, if they were to "sculpt" a plane-shaped ditch, you'd think they would have taken the time to make it look more like a plane and less like a dual missile impact.

"dual missile impact", nice term, we should forever remember who coined it.

QUOTE
I ask again, when would you say the 'bomb' was planted?

Possibly some time before 9/11 2001. (I don't expect them to take night shift to be finished the same morning the attacks happened)

QUOTE
You've already displayed your ignorance on the capabilities of certain missile warheads, shall we repeat the lesson for their accuracy and fuse capabilities?

Ignorance? Take some lessons in physics before you post withdrawn press releases with unbelievable numbers - at least to people who passed in physics at a high school. And anyway a fuse still isn't a homing device seamlessly cappable of transmitting for meter precission targetting after a ground impact at 100s of meters per second speeds.

QUOTE
But nowadays they just plant a bug on a guy and send in a drone. You don't suppose such targeting systems just 'appear' overnight, do you? Of course you don't.
...Each tag can be installed on a witting or unwitting person
http://www.ewa-gsi.com/Fact%20Sheets/Bigfo...act%20Sheet.pdf (mind the dimensions of the device at the picture and tell us more about installing it on onwitting persons blink.gif )

Anyway, you look as smart man with answer to everything - do such bugs withstand impact into ground at 100s of meters per second? ...Somehowow I don't see anything like that in the specs.

QUOTE
Actually experience tells me to expect others to ridicule, scoff and question my sanity (how does it feel to be so predictable?), but it sure seems to me that I've answered every one of your decidedly painless questions quite nicely. What burning issues remain unaccounted for?

Still we somehow don't have answered the question about the evidence for the device at one missile homing other after it impacted ground and burried itself into it.

QUOTE
QUOTE
They just murdered thousands of people and suddenly they would be tender-hearted that they would care about their bodyparts more than for the hijack-plane show? It doesn't seem plausible rolleyes.gif And if that what made the crater was a drone, missiles or planted explosives, there obviously wouldn't be any body parts there anyway.

The "horror" card, always played by the disingenuous, right behind the "sanity" card. Pathetic. I expected more.

Is it only me who somehow don't see what your answer reacts on in the quote? rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
And now you're demanding proof that such weapons don't have interchangeable targeting systems. Really? Now we're back to square one, namely dealing with your incredulity. Sorry man, I'm not here as your therapist.

Me neither yours and I lack expertise in delusions, but I'm just still avaiting the proof there ever was a device on missiles to precisely home other after impacting ground at the high speeds.

QUOTE
Yeah, after 12 @#$%ing years of watching the big-name "truthers" spin their wheels and lead us into dead-ends, I'm the one who's a #%^ing red-herring. Get over yourself.

blahblah1.gif ...No, of course not, herrings are small, stinky and too salted, you're a big clear dual missile impact truther and your version of the WTC and Shanksville attack looks to me as it must immediately succeed to persuade majority of your fellow Americans and any court and get the perps on their electric chairs. I'm just still awaiting you to come out with a 5gon dual missile impact theory. Then the circle will become full.
QUOTE
And it's not proof but it's sure telling that when it comes to multiple missiles, the "OS" Believers, the "Modified Plane" Believers, the "It's all Fake" Believers, the "DEW" believers and the "Mini Nuke" believers all circle the wagons.

I'm interested in the proofs. Until then I take you as no plane/video fakery/dual missile impact believer.

QUOTE
No kidding. Looks like sumpin' else entirely to me.

For purposes of entertainment tell us please more about the entirely sumpin' else.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 6 2014, 11:20 AM
Post #44





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



Great non-answer, Yankee.

He offered essentially 2 statements to the media. First said he found nothing. Second said he found bodies and airplane parts. Clearly conflicting statements.

One must be true and one must be false. Which is true and which is false?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 6 2014, 11:54 AM
Post #45





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 6 2014, 07:20 AM) *
Great non-answer, Yankee.

He offered essentially 2 statements to the media. First said he found nothing. Second said he found bodies and airplane parts. Clearly conflicting statements.

One must be true and one must be false. Which is true and which is false?


It is not a non-answer to say he was part of the fraud, it is just an answer you didn't like.

Can you think of any reason why he'd first say he found nothing but then changed his story? I can: most people would agree with his first assessment, giving him credibility with folks who noticed the same thing. Later after further investigation he said he did find plane and body parts, making the people who agreed with his first statement think that in spite of the fact that the coroner first thought there was nothing there, he was mistaken, making folks believe they were mistaken too, especially since they weren't on the scene like he was.

He was part of the fraud.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Feb 6 2014, 12:29 PM
Post #46





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



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 5 2014, 10:21 PM) *
Ta DA!!!

And yet a missile DID explode in the trees!

So now it is a three missile theory? First off, a missile did not explode in the trees, it exploded in the ravine and damaged the trees. Second, the damage was not in the path of the ravine that you say was caused by a missile. Third, there is no way that a missile with an 8' wingspan navigated its way through this dense grove of trees.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 6 2014, 01:44 PM
Post #47





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



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 05:53 AM) *
If I wouldn't consider the option I wouldn't try to discuss it with you, don't you think?


This is not a discussion; you are disingenuous.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 05:53 AM) *
Now, for the starter and purpose of credibility evaluation try please calculate what the warhead's impact speed would need to be to travel "half mile" after experiencing "12,000Gs" deceleration - just for example: if my calculator works properly it means a deceleration of a 60in/1524 mm long warhead from say 300 m/s (AGM158 is subsonic, isn't it?) to zero at less than 3 milimeters?...does the warhead on top of other supernatural cappabilities teleport itself through the targets and beyond? laughing1.gif


Take it up with Boeing...I'm not sure what you find so funny.

Recall, you couldn't imagine how the missile warhead could survive the impact.:
QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 05:53 AM) *
One doesn't expect a missile hitting ground - at high speed and penetrating it several meters - to stay intact including a homing device.


I guess you giggle when you're confused; I can just imagine what you might do when you're scared.


QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 05:53 AM) *
Nobody sober would expect jet parts undammaged after striking ground at 250 m/s. What an excavator can do to it on top of that?


Your logic gives me chills. Do crash investigations often include excavators in your world?


QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 05:53 AM) *
I've seen a photo unearthing jet engine, I haven't seen it was unearthing body parts. But looks you have loads of insider information. Tell us more.


You have a dizzying intellect for sure. The official tripe that you eat with a spoon states the deeper they dug with the heavy equipment, the larger the pieces they unearthed. Why wouldn't they be concerned they might dig up an arm or a head? From where did Wally Miller get the "DNA?" Did he sift through the excavator buckets?

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 05:53 AM) *
"dual missile impact", nice term, we should forever remember who coined it.


Who is this "we" you speak for? Do you hear voices? I can't say that anything you've written will be remembered past mid-morning.

When asked when you'd say the "bomb" was planted, this is the fur ball you coughed up:
QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 05:53 AM) *
Possibly some time before 9/11 2001. (I don't expect them to take night shift to be finished the same morning the attacks happened)


"Possibly" means you're guessing. Is there any evidence to support this guess? Was the gash dug far enough in advance for the grass grow over the gash or was it a fresh scar? It must have been a while before the big day else you'd see evidence of the heavy equipment in the form of crushed grass around the hole.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 05:53 AM) *
Ignorance? Take some lessons in physics before you post withdrawn press releases with unbelievable numbers - at least to people who passed in physics at a high school. And anyway a fuse still isn't a homing device seamlessly cappable of transmitting for meter precission targetting after a ground impact at 100s of meters per second speeds.


Yes. Ignorance begets disbelief. Perhaps you can use your physics to explain how the crater is not consistent with a missile impact. Here's an article that can help you:

QUOTE
Crater dimensions are a function of the kinetic energy of the missiles, angles of impact, and target material. Projectile density, shape, orientation, size, and velocity may also affect crater dimensions [Denatto, 1968; Denardo et al., 1967; Co. ok and Mortensen, 1967; Culp and Hooper, 1961], but these variables, which are known, may not be specified for all the missile impact craters. Nevertheless, the effect of the kinetic energy and target material on crater size can be illustrated by using crater radii and dis- placed masses.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029...p05750/abstract



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 05:53 AM) *
Anyway, you look as smart man with answer to everything - do such bugs withstand impact into ground at 100s of meters per second? ...Somehowow I don't see anything like that in the specs.

Still we somehow don't have answered the question about the evidence for the device at one missile homing other after it impacted ground and burried itself into it.


Desperate men clutch at any straw, but this still doesn't change the shape of the crater; obviously targeting wasn't an issue. I guess you're too young to remember the military bragging about sending smart bombs down chimneys.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 05:53 AM) *
Is it only me who somehow don't see what your answer reacts on in the quote? rolleyes.gif


It's you.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 05:53 AM) *
Me neither yours and I lack expertise in delusions, but I'm just still avaiting the proof there ever was a device on missiles to precisely home other after impacting ground at the high speeds.


Why would you think a tiny solid-state beacon would be damaged by a deceleration? It was well protected from damage by the warhead as shown in the test data you claim is B.S. and such beacons sure don't seem to have much issue with the acceleration of being launched into space:

QUOTE
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. anti-missile weapon was able to destroy a test
warhead in space on July 14 partly because a beacon on the target signaled
its location during much of the flight, defense officials said on Friday.

The officials confirmed a report by Defense Week that the ''hit-to-kill''
weapon was guided to the vicinity of the speeding warhead high over the
Pacific Ocean by signals from the electronic beacon in a successful, highly
publicized test.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic...ics/jW6F4xmBv9c


So tell me, why would you think the beacon would be damaged by the deceleration? Is it because you still can't imagine a missile warhead staying intact as it passes through rock and soil? I don't know why you can't accept this fact, the AGM-158 warhead is just a smaller version of a blu-109 - here's a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHKkzuU2qtE

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 05:53 AM) *
blahblah1.gif ...No, of course not, herrings are small, stinky and too salted, you're a big clear dual missile impact truther and your version of the WTC and Shanksville attack looks to me as it must immediately succeed to persuade majority of your fellow Americans and any court and get the perps on their electric chairs. I'm just still awaiting you to come out with a 5gon dual missile impact theory. Then the circle will become full.


Oh look, another faux-truther wanting to petition the court system that put Bush into office for redress. You probably would have demanded Hitler investigate the Reichstag fire. News flash, some of us are interested in the truth regardless how unpopular it is.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 6 2014, 02:02 PM
Post #48





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



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 6 2014, 08:29 AM) *
So now it is a three missile theory? First off, a missile did not explode in the trees, it exploded in the ravine and damaged the trees.


Unlike any of your theories, it is consistent with the evidence.

So let me get this straight, a buried c.200 lb bomb created a 30 foot crater and the explosion and fireball was so huge that it broke, split and set fire to trees 120 feet away? I see you're still clutching at straws.



This post has been edited by yankee451: Feb 6 2014, 02:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 6 2014, 06:15 PM
Post #49





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 6 2014, 06:44 AM) *
This is not a discussion; you are disingenuous.

direct ad-hominem usually raise bs_flag.gif

QUOTE
Take it up with Boeing...I'm not sure what you find so funny.

What I've quoted - the numbers in the press release you've linked. Have you even a slightest idea what a deceleration means a "12,000Gs"?

QUOTE
Recall, you couldn't imagine how the missile warhead could survive the impact.

strawman - I was talking about the homing device, not warhead.

QUOTE
I guess you giggle when you're confused; I can just imagine what you might do when you're scared.

I can almost imagine what might you do. rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
Your logic gives me chills. Do crash investigations often include excavators in your world?

Try google crash+investigation+excavator

QUOTE
You have a dizzying intellect for sure. The official tripe that you eat with a spoon states the deeper they dug with the heavy equipment, the larger the pieces they unearthed. Why wouldn't they be concerned they might dig up an arm or a head?

Arm, head? After a 200+m/s crash? Your intelect must be dizzying for sure. yes1.gif

QUOTE
From where did Wally Miller get the "DNA?" Did he sift through the excavator buckets?

Try ask him.

QUOTE
Who is this "we" you speak for? Do you hear voices?

Do you?

QUOTE
I can't say that anything you've written will be remembered past mid-morning.

I'm almost sure the "dual missile impact" zinger will be.

QUOTE
"Possibly" means you're guessing. Is there any evidence to support this guess? Was the gash dug far enough in advance for the grass grow over the gash or was it a fresh scar? It must have been a while before the big day else you'd see evidence of the heavy equipment in the form of crushed grass around the hole.

The bomb at the site together with planted plane parts as well as the possibility of the gashes being at the site before the 9/11 are possibilities which are neither proven nor excluded. It is not a claim of the kind the two missiles of very certain type impacted the former mining site homing one on the other - which moreover very much looks like you first have this conjecture and only then you search for evidence to satisfy your confirmation bias, immediately insulting everybody who doesn't buy into it at face value - which alone definitely raises red flags already when one considers the style you present your case.
Two missiles is remotely maybe one possibility. But until you have hard evidence for it, not conflicting with such things as the forest in the way of one of them it is nothing more than that.

QUOTE
Yes. Ignorance begets disbelief. Perhaps you can use your physics to explain how the crater is not consistent with a missile impact.

I haven't claimed the crater is inconsistent with a missile impact. I even gave you a hint why it could be consistent with two events - impact and subsequent explosion in the middle. But still I don't see any evidence for two missiles there. If a rationale to use a hard target penetrator would be the creation of the gashes the missile impacting ground at high incidence angle could easily get deflected by the harder bedrock at the high incidence angle and create both the gashes. (mind how straight the line of the two gashes is! The missiles would need to approach at exactly opposite trajectories). In fact it seems to me on the other hand quite difficult to imagine how a hard target penetrator would get in rest just couple of meters behind the touchdown point in soil which has known history of digging in it so with likely loose compactness and easily penetrable by something like AGM158. For me also definitely doesn't seem plausible a cruise missile dependent on having intact wings for the control of its flight would be able to approach the site at high incidence angle from the side of the forest for a high incidence angle impact - at least not with sufficient certainty of a success - the trees look to me too close for changing descent angle from needed ~40 to clear the trees to your 10 impact angle. A penetrator is not a meteorite, it is contructed to NOT explode on impact and explode only when it reaches certain density of material it is penetrating, so I can imagine it striking the ground, burry itself in it, seriously dammage or completely loose its wings, get deflected by more compact bedrock below, making the other side of the gash, reemerge into air in uncontrolled flight and with possibly seriously impaired aerodynamics, and then its warhead explode into the then destructed tip of the forest behind.

QUOTE
Desperate men clutch at any straw.

Yes the straws are there on the site in the gash (at least we see them on the photo) - made allegedly by the AGM158 together with other AGM158 from the other side in your so far desperate hypothesis you try carbon print on WTC too.

QUOTE
but this still doesn't change the shape of the crater; obviously targeting wasn't an issue. I guess you're too young to remember the military bragging about sending smart bombs down chimneys.

When you are guessing about my age it is good occasion to ask you how old are you and how long you are researching 9/11?

QUOTE
Why would you think a tiny solid-state beacon would be damaged by a deceleration?

A homing device must have functioning aerial and emit radiowaves with sufficient range and for sufficient time for the other missile to acquire the signal to lock on it and because I happen to have education in electronics I hardly can imagine such device with needed source of energy and aerial function together properly and with sufficient certainty burried meters under ground after a high speed impact. A transmitter is something pretty different than a fuse basically based on the extreme acceleration changes.

QUOTE
It was well protected from damage by the warhead as shown in the test data you claim is B.S.

There wasn't a word about a homing device in the test data. This site is more about research, facts, not unsubstantiated perseverative conjectures.

QUOTE
and such beacons sure don't seem to have much issue with the acceleration of being launched into space:

Can you see difference between G loads during a space launch and G loads on ground impact at 100s m/s speeds?

QUOTE
So tell me, why would you think the beacon would be damaged by the deceleration?

I still don't see rationale why not plant a homing device on the site, why it must undergo the high Gs impact with uncertain result in the first place.

QUOTE
Is it because you still can't imagine a missile warhead staying intact as it passes through rock and soil?

- I can imagine it, I just don't see it necessarily needing to carry the homing device for the effect. There are also different ways how to home missiles and bombs and the presence of unidentified circling plane around the site at relatively low altitude could point to such directions.

QUOTE
Oh look, another faux-truther wanting to petition the court system that put Bush into office for redress. You probably would have demanded Hitler investigate the Reichstag fire.

I would bet that repeated oafish insults really don't make good impression here, especially not among senior members of this forum who sacrificed years of their time to serious research into government sponsored terrorism an figuring out what to do about it. In my case since 1997. So please avoid them next time. I suggest you to read the rules of this forum and follow them before it is too late.
Whether you are right or not with your hypothesis, which I initially deemed worth to examine, I don't know, but I'm member of this forum long time enough to be sure that intensifiying your frustrated rudeness definitely will not help your cause an inch and continuation with this pushy style will definitely not open you here any way to be taken seriously a slightest bit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 6 2014, 06:39 PM
Post #50





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



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
I would bet that repeated oafish insults really don't make good impression here,


When in Rome...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 6 2014, 09:11 PM
Post #51





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 6 2014, 11:39 AM) *
When in Rome...

Apparently, not only here but in your very own Rome..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 7 2014, 03:59 AM
Post #52





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



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
What I've quoted - the numbers in the press release you've linked. Have you even a slightest idea what a deceleration means a "12,000Gs"?


No idea. My mind's a blank. But at least I know they were talking about the impact to the CASING, not the deceleration of the warhead.


QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
The bomb at the site together with planted plane parts as well as the possibility of the gashes being at the site before the 9/11 are possibilities which are neither proven nor excluded.


Why is it when I read "neither proven nor excluded" that I recall interviews with military officials who can neither confirm or deny something?

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
It is not a claim of the kind the two missiles of very certain type impacted the former mining site homing one on the other - which moreover very much looks like you first have this conjecture and only then you search for evidence to satisfy your confirmation bias, immediately insulting everybody who doesn't buy into it at face value - which alone definitely raises red flags already when one considers the style you present your case.


Was I too specific in mentioning the JASSM as an example of off-the-shelf-missile-technology available at the time? My bad, so let's say it wasn't the JASSM. Are you denying the technology existed?
Why would they plant a beacon in the ground when the first missile would quite likely have moved the beacon? Just askin'.
Why would red flags be raised about anything I present, that is unless someone has preconceptions they're already struggling with?

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
Two missiles is remotely maybe one possibility. But until you have hard evidence for it, not conflicting with such things as the forest in the way of one of them it is nothing more than that.

The woods were a conundrum for me, granted but other than that the evidence supports this conclusion quite nicely. So let's talk about the woods (it's not really a forest):

Let's say you're right and they did indeed plant a targeting beacon in the ground. This would be much stealthier than planting a bomb, not to mention digging a ditch in advance in which case grass would have grown, making it plain to a barnyard animal that the ditch had been there for quite some time. I digress - back to the woods: I know the gash appearance fits my missile conclusion but the woods were a problem and were one of the reasons I contracted an engineer. I need to know what minimum trajectory would be attained by a cruise missile cruising just above tree-level before its terminal dive. Additionally, what I need to know (and what I don't know) was how much the warhead would be deflected by the ground.

Look at the official story: "flight 93 buries into the ground and the cockpit exploded like shrapnel, shattering and igniting the trees a hundred feet in the distance". Does this story not sound like a lie a child might make when caught with their hands in the cookie jar? I don't know but here are my burning tree issues:

  • Were the burned, split and broken trees the result of a missile strike that clipped a tree?
  • How much would the ground have deflected the warhead? Would the resultant trajectory miss the trees?
  • In a terminal dive, would the trees even be in an issue to a 900-lb bullet? So the wings of the missile were clipped off by the trees a split-second before impact with the ground; so what? It wasn't going to detonate anyway.


QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
I haven't claimed the crater is inconsistent with a missile impact. I even gave you a hint why it could be consistent with two events - impact and subsequent explosion in the middle. But still I don't see any evidence for two missiles there.


This summer I will attempt to recreate a smaller version of the gash using two bullets and a firecracker. Stay tuned!

If a rationale to use a hard target penetrator would be the creation of the gashes the missile impacting ground at high incidence angle could easily get deflected by the harder bedrock at the high incidence angle and create both the gashes. (mind how straight the line of the two gashes is!

Not so straight:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/20...undetonated.png


QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
The missiles would need to approach at exactly opposite trajectories).


So what?

Their way point capabilities are well documented.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
In fact it seems to me on the other hand quite difficult to imagine how a hard target penetrator would get in rest just couple of meters behind the touchdown point in soil which has known history of digging in it so with likely loose compactness and easily penetrable by something like AGM158.


From the perspective of a guy who has spent too much time wielding a shovel, this soil looks like an ass kicker:




QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
For me also definitely doesn't seem plausible a cruise missile dependent on having intact wings for the control of its flight would be able to approach the site at high incidence angle from the side of the forest for a high incidence angle impact - at least not with sufficient certainty of a success - the trees look to me too close for changing descent angle from needed ~40 to clear the trees to your 10 impact angle. A penetrator is not a meteorite, it is contructed to NOT explode on impact and explode only when it reaches certain density of material it is penetrating, so I can imagine it striking the ground, burry itself in it, seriously dammage or completely loose its wings, get deflected by more compact bedrock below, making the other side of the gash, reemerge into air in uncontrolled flight and with possibly seriously impaired aerodynamics, and then its warhead explode into the then destructed tip of the forest behind.


See above. It's just a flying bomb. If it lost a wing in the final 50 feet of it's terminal dive, how much deflection would really occur at 300 MPH? I'm guessing it would be negligible, but that's just me.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
Yes the straws are there on the site in the gash (at least we see them on the photo) - made allegedly by the AGM158 together with other AGM158 from the other side in your so far desperate hypothesis you try carbon print on WTC too.


You've got it backwards. I started with the WTC and then realized the Shanksvile Crater fit the JASSM bill too. Here's my first post on the matter:
http://letsrollforums.com/more-missiles-du...ted-t25879.html

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
When you are guessing about my age it is good occasion to ask you how old are you and how long you are researching 9/11?


I volunteered to sweep the parking lot for the Scholars for 9/11 truth back in 2006 - Steve De'ak
http://twilightpines.com/index.php?option=...8&Itemid=35

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
A homing device must have functioning aerial and emit radiowaves with sufficient range and for sufficient time for the other missile to acquire the signal to lock on it and because I happen to have education in electronics I hardly can imagine such device with needed source of energy and aerial function together properly and with sufficient certainty burried meters under ground after a high speed impact. A transmitter is something pretty different than a fuse basically based on the extreme acceleration changes.

Very impressive, really, but it doesn't change the damage evidence.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
There wasn't a word about a homing device in the test data. This site is more about research, facts, not unsubstantiated perseverative conjectures.

Says he who speculates about pre-dug gashes and buried bombs.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
Can you see difference between G loads during a space launch and G loads on ground impact at 100s m/s speeds?

Sure. Can you see the difference between 12000Gs load stress on a missile warhead casing and the deceleration of the warhead itself?


QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
I still don't see rationale why not plant a homing device on the site, why it must undergo the high Gs impact with uncertain result in the first place.

I concede this point to you. Why wouldn't they simply plant a beacon instead of a bomb? cool.gif

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 6 2014, 02:15 PM) *
I would bet that repeated oafish insults really don't make good impression here, especially not among senior members of this forum who sacrificed years of their time to serious research into government sponsored terrorism an figuring out what to do about it. In my case since 1997.


Dang! So you had this all figured out in 1997!?? You are so the MAN! Pity 15+ years have passed since then and fewer people than ever could give a flying @#$% about it. Maybe it's time to change tactics?

This post has been edited by yankee451: Feb 7 2014, 04:04 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 7 2014, 02:07 PM
Post #53





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 6 2014, 08:59 PM) *
No idea. My mind's a blank.


I know math is painful for some type of people, but 1 G overfreight in standard terms would be induced by a deceleration 9.8 m/s in one second. Don't expect much more than 300 m/s as impact speed (AGM158 is subsonic) and with the "12,000Gs" figure try simple math - sometimes it is useful for discerning between possible and utter B.S... yes1.gif

"But at least I know they were talking about the impact to the CASING, not the deceleration of the warhead."
And you tell me something about desperate men clutching every straw...
For your information if a casing of something (in case of a warhead having certain geometry of its frontal part to not break apart upon impact) experiences a deceleration upon impact its content either experiences it too (upon action-reaction principle) or their ways inevitably divide.

"Why is it when I read "neither proven nor excluded" that I recall interviews with military officials who can neither confirm or deny something?"
For one trained in scientific method more than in demagoguery it means pretty something else.

"Was I too specific in mentioning the JASSM as an example of off-the-shelf-missile-technology available at the time? My bad, so let's say it wasn't the JASSM. Are you denying the technology existed?"
I'm quite sure not a subsonic technology which experiences 12000Gs and then continues another halfmile moving intact in the same direction.

"Why would they plant a beacon in the ground when the first missile would quite likely have moved the beacon? Just askin'."
Moved maybe, but it quite not sure it would still be functional after the impact.

"Why would red flags be raised about anything I present, that is unless someone has preconceptions they're already struggling with?"
It is your indecent pushy style making impression you must be right for whatever price and becoming defensive whenever have objections to your version.

"The woods were a conundrum for me, granted but other than that the evidence supports this conclusion quite nicely."
A scientific method is not about confirmation bias, it is about falsification - if one single fact impairs a hypothesis viability, no matter how much other evidence you have the hypothesis is moot until you find out how your hypothesis can get over it -here over the trees.

"So let's talk about the woods (it's not really a forest)"
Whatever - I'm not English native so this are unimportant details to me.

"Let's say you're right and they did indeed plant a targeting beacon in the ground. This would be much stealthier than planting a bomb, not to mention digging a ditch in advance"
There it look from the 1994 photo, that indeed the point of impact has different texture than its surroundings suggesting somebody was digging there, possibly burrying something - at the very same place where later the plane parts were found (green circle).

"in which case grass would have grown, making it plain to a barnyard animal that the ditch had been there for quite some time."
I'm rather neutral on this, but others here apparently point to this direction.

"I digress - back to the woods: I know the gash appearance fits my missile conclusion but the woods were a problem and were one of the reasons I contracted an engineer. I need to know what minimum trajectory would be attained by a cruise missile cruising just above tree-level before its terminal dive. Additionally, what I need to know (and what I don't know) was how much the warhead would be deflected by the ground."
It very much depends on the compactness of the soil, compactness and geometry of the underlying bedrock, geometry of the missile and warhead tips, impact angle, momentum of the missile and warhead given by the impact speed. There are too many unknowns for this. One must go backwards - find the geometry of the gash and then try with what conditions it would get out from the missile impact like it is and whether such conditions are in realm of possible. I tend to believe they are for the impact from the eastern side at high incidence angle, but for the other side I can't much imagine anything flying 100s of m/s to 1. twice change trajectory dozens of degrees at mere couple of dozens of meters distance travelled to get into the high incidence angle attitude and 2. make impact from exactly opposite direction than the first missile - I strongly don't tend to believe something like this is possible for a cruise missile.

"Look at the official story: "flight 93 buries into the ground and the cockpit exploded like shrapnel, shattering and igniting the trees a hundred feet in the distance".
BS. Did anybody have seen something like that? I very strongly doubt it. The whole 47m plane would be gone in quarter of second at the speeds suggested by the last subframe in the FDR data, not speaking about cockpit. Only what this quote shows is poor understanding of the one who wrote it and that the one definitely haven't seen the impact.

"Does this story not sound like a lie a child might make when caught with their hands in the cookie jar?"
It pretty much does.

"Were the burned, split and broken trees the result of a missile strike that clipped a tree?"
I doubt it, it looks more like an explosion caused it. If so, the missile would never make it to the ground because explosives in its warhead likely have much higher detonation velocity (hypersonic) than was the speed of the missile.

"How much would the ground have deflected the warhead? Would the resultant trajectory miss the trees?"
From geometry of the gash I find it highly unlikely. From the photographs of the scene it looks they were too tall to miss.

"In a terminal dive, would the trees even be in an issue to a 900-lb bullet?"
Not for bullet, but for a wingy missile - it definitely would not have the maneuvrability to get through intact - and there are no broken trees in the line of the gash. They are considerably more south. A warhead alone has no propulsion to change trajectory after the missile would clip the trees there, not speaking change trajectory in such way to exacly hit from exactly opposite side than the first missile would hit to make the nice straiht line of the two gashes. That's highly unlikely to impossible.

QUOTE
So the wings of the missile were clipped off by the trees a split-second before impact with the ground; so what?

This looks to me like jumping to a conclusion which is pretty not supported by available evidence. There are no broken trees in the line of the gash.

QUOTE
This summer I will attempt to recreate a smaller version of the gash using two bullets and a firecracker. Stay tuned!

I'm not sure what it can prove, a bullet is not a wingy cruise missile - having aerodynamic maneuvrability, but pretty surely unable to fly through forest of trees (woods).

QUOTE
If a rationale to use a hard target penetrator would be the creation of the gashes the missile impacting ground at high incidence angle could easily get deflected by the harder bedrock at the high incidence angle and create both the gashes. (mind how straight the line of the two gashes is!

QUOTE
Not so straight

It looks pretty straight to me when I don't do perspective tricks on picture depicting variable depth holes.

QUOTE

Your picture anotated:


QUOTE
If it lost a wing in the final 50 feet of it's terminal dive, how much deflection would really occur at 300 MPH?

But there are no broken trees in the line of the gash:


QUOTE
I'm guessing it would be negligible, but that's just me.

Looks like it is just you.
I think a deflection of 20 would be very possible, because the compressibility of the bedrock would be much lower than the soil above (especially if it was losen by digging just years before) and the leading edge of the penetrator warhead casing tip would be very much expected to be bullet like rounded conical (because such geometry facilitates the penetration and at the same time prevents tip destruction even upon high speed impacts because the conical hole it bores compresses the tip from all sides keeping so its shape more or less intact and shielding the charges and detonator behind from shattering and although the pressures there could be tremendous at the moment of penetration the detonator lodged in the high explosive charge would not tend to displace its parts around paradoxicaly kept together and intact by the pressures if designed to withstand them - at least for the hundredths of second the penetration usually lasts - and then fire the charge whenever the accelerometer detects drop in overfreight indicating it is behind the fortification, usually a reinforced concrete) so on high incidence angle of the impact in fact the tip geometry would be very much helping such deflection by diferent drag dynamics of the penetrated material below (less compressible and having even less compessible materials beneath) and above (more compressible and having not much reacting force from above - because there is the air) which would lift the whole warhead back out from the ground if the impact angle relatively to level would be higher than the tip conicity angle, in fact the momentum of the high density penetrator warhead would definitely be enough for something like that happen, and moreover such result in my opinion is much more likely than that the warhead would come to rest from 100s of meters speed at just some couple of meters penetration of a loosen soil. Mind that penetrators are designed to penetrate thick heavy reinforced targets, but this capabilty work best only at closely to frontal impact, a high incidence impact would always tend to cause a non-negligible deflection.

QUOTE
You've got it backwards. I started with the WTC and then realized the Shanksvile Crater fit the JASSM bill too.

Whatever

QUOTE
I volunteered to sweep the parking lot for the Scholars for 9/11 truth back in 2006 - Steve De'ak

You somehow forgot your age... I'm 43, I've researched terrorism for my doctoral thesis since 1997, promoted in spring 2001, thesis published 2002, but never buying into the official propaganda I lost my career before it really started researching 9/11 independently, for some time colaborating on the Czech-Slovak 9/11 research page 911blog.yweb.sk until it was shut down and also getting a member here - the only 9/11 site which never deleted my posts although we had loads of misunderstandings, disagreements and heated arguments here including with Rob.

QUOTE
Very impressive, really, but it doesn't change the damage evidence.

Neither there is evidence of dual cruise missile impact and the close tree line from one side there more or less renders something like that very unlikely.

QUOTE
Says he who speculates about pre-dug gashes and buried bombs.

At least I don't claim it as fact.

QUOTE
Sure. Can you see the difference between 12000Gs load stress on a missile warhead casing and the deceleration of the warhead itself?

No. If they would have diferent decelerations on impact their ways would inevitably have split. And anyway 12000Gs would mean full arrest at just order of milimeters distance travelled. The warhead according to specs is order of many hundreds of times longer.

QUOTE
I concede this point to you. Why wouldn't they simply plant a beacon instead of a bomb? cool.gif

I don't know, could be, but still it doesn't solve the problem with missile which would need to pass through the forest of trees (woods).

QUOTE
Dang! So you had this all figured out in 1997!?? You are so the MAN! Pity 15+ years have passed since then and fewer people than ever could give a flying @#$% about it. Maybe it's time to change tactics?

It is 12 and something years from 9/11.
Before 9/11 I was i.e. looking into the WTC93 bombing and OKC bombing and yes already then I've realized there are many fishy things about this events and I very much suspected a govt. involvement. I was almost thrown from the university when I wanted to involve the topics in my thesis, I was fervently fought by the thesis supervisor and been called many names and even explicitely labeled mentally ill and that I belong to mental hospital in front of all my fellow colleagues just when trying explain things. Funny is that after I anyway obtained all the diplomas the same guy then was initially suddenly inviting me to speak about the issue immediately after 9/11, but when realizing my opinion is really not leaning towards UBL and boxcutterguys tale any interest very quickly faded.
In fact the 9/11 was not much a surprise to me, I felt a really major attack on US targets possibly even on US soil against major targets is imminent years before 2001 and even then it was clear to me that it would be for creating pretext for finishing the unfinished job by the Gulf war and after seeing the events unfolding live in TV more or less from the beginning I expressed my opinion it was a domestic false flag govt. sponsored operation the very same day, just hours after the fact when asked by my to death frightened American friend - already because with my then I admit fragmentary knowledge in general I absolutely couldn't imagine how an operation of such proportions could have been made by a goverment independent terrorist organization and without at least a complicity at the domestic level -also because taught in radar technology and airdefense procedures in college times back in 1980s it was quite impossible for me to understand why the planes weren't intercepted - although only much later discovering in the radar data the fighterjets were indeed there in the air, moreover in almost ideal positions to intercept the first two planes, not speaking that even if they weren't I hardly can imagine US shore regions not to be covered by SAM interceptors for the case primary intercept procedures would be not viable or fail, which to this days I don't understand especially in the case of the 5gon attack - I don't believe it hadn't such defense capability - because even the last barracks in our country had such capability in 1980s and nobody would hesitate a second to down unidentified plane on the radar aiming at a major target the capital city and especially not in case others already have strucked multiple another major targets elsewhere more or less live on national TV.
Now it is already couple of years since I've retired from really active 9/11 research, after 10th anniversary I told myself there is a little chance to have the perps ever prosecuted, not speaking that I'm seriously haunted by certain circles since I co-masterminded an extensive political action against the totalitarian euroconstitution reintroduced in 2008 after the failed referendums in 2006, which was much less remote problem at the time for us in Europe than a 9/11, so I don't even have time and conditions for a serious 9/11 research since. And anyway I'm primarily a scientist, not a propagandist who strives to change peoples minds by a tactics for whatever price. For me a simple definition of freedom is to have own things in own hands including mind. Peoples mind is their responsibility. I only look for facts I could present them and possibilities they could imply which I can imagine - what people make from it is their business and nothing what I really want to manipulate. Because an ignorance is impossible to be cured - although I'm trained by world's best teacher in best known methods designed for overcoming it for oneself it is anyway not easy. My primary expertise is in field of psychology, so I know a bit about it and that there is no shortcut on the path from the proverbial cave. And anyway after the years I don't believe that most of people are so stupid that they don't realize there are loads of fishy things about 9/11 and numerous other nasty things the govts. do. I can imagine what potential ends their corruption can have for human civilization. But I think much more painful question is whether the people are able to realize the imminent danger for their ways of decent life and do something decisive about before it is too late - and I'm (after all that years experiencing for example the 9/11 truthe movement and the widespread absence of sobriety in judging the available facts, making plausible conclusions and taking a viable action, unability to see larger picture, turning itself at marginal details, unable to admit mistakes and move on and instead repeating the same BS's of the Judywoodo kinds into oblivion and firing egregious insults around upon slightest disagreements resulting in neverending division driven by the worst kind of ignorance among people, the ignorance of good manners) pretty skeptical...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Feb 7 2014, 08:02 PM
Post #54





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



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 6 2014, 02:02 PM) *
Unlike any of your theories, it is consistent with the evidence.

So let me get this straight, a buried c.200 lb bomb created a 30 foot crater and the explosion and fireball was so huge that it broke, split and set fire to trees 120 feet away? I see you're still clutching at straws.


I don't know where you are getting "a buried c.200 lb bomb" from. Tume's picture proves your theory is wrong just as the grass growing in the ravine did. It is not possible that a missile came at 10 degrees from the west. Give it up. There are too many critical thinkers on this site to buy your B.S.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 8 2014, 04:38 AM
Post #55





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



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 7 2014, 04:02 PM) *
I don't know where you are getting "a buried c.200 lb bomb" from. Tume's picture proves your theory is wrong just as the grass growing in the ravine did. It is not possible that a missile came at 10 degrees from the west. Give it up. There are too many critical thinkers on this site to buy your B.S.


By comparing the size of the center crater with bombs that create similarly sized craters.

QUOTE
The size of the crater was approximately 39 feet by 24 and 15 feet Deep.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2001/AAR0101.pdf


QUOTE
A 500 pound bomb containing about 200 pounds of explosive blows about a 30
foot diameter crater perhaps 11 feet deep in loose soil.
http://yarchive.net/explosives/avalanche.html


QUOTE
The 1,000lb class WDU-42/B (J-1000) penetrating warhead consists of 240lb of extremely insensitive explosive (AFX-757).
http://www.airforce-technology.com/project...andoff-missile/


Nonsense. There is no grass growing in the gash as the photos prove. If there were 'too many' critical thinkers here even one of them could explain why the grass is not filling the whole ditch and is only visible rolling over the undermined edge of the crater and in clumps of soil that rolled back into the gash. Why isn't the whole thing filled with the tall grass blades? Not enough sun?

Tuma's photo proves nothing of the sort, from that angle and distance a terrain hugging missile like a JASSM wouldn't have any issue. If that trajectory turns out to be greater than 10 degrees fine, I don't doubt it would still be shallow enough to create the gash. Thinking critically, what angle of attack do you think would be needed to clear the trees?

This post has been edited by yankee451: Feb 8 2014, 04:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 8 2014, 04:27 PM
Post #56





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



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
I know math is painful for some type of people, but 1 G overfreight in standard terms would be induced by a deceleration 9.8 m/s in one second. Don't expect much more than 300 m/s as impact speed (AGM158 is subsonic) and with the "12,000Gs" figure try simple math - sometimes it is useful for discerning between possible and utter B.S... yes1.gif


How's that math working for you? Here's the latest from my own private Rome where even claptrap rappers are allowed to speak freely:
http://911crashtest.org/comments-2/#comment-4496

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
"But at least I know they were talking about the impact to the CASING, not the deceleration of the warhead."
And you tell me something about desperate men clutching every straw...
For your information if a casing of something (in case of a warhead having certain geometry of its frontal part to not break apart upon impact) experiences a deceleration upon impact its content either experiences it too (upon action-reaction principle) or their ways inevitably divide.
"Was I too specific in mentioning the JASSM as an example of off-the-shelf-missile-technology available at the time? My bad, so let's say it wasn't the JASSM. Are you denying the technology existed?"
I'm quite sure not a subsonic technology which experiences 12000Gs and then continues another halfmile moving intact in the same direction.


Without knowing the speed of the rocket sled, you're flying blind, but if your final answer is that Boeing's test was B.S., here's a video of a blu-109 rocket sled test similar to the one described by Boeing. Now, considering the JASSM warhead is a smaller version of a blu-109, based on videos like this (and there are many), it's pretty clear where the B.S. is coming from. A smaller missile would have less drag as it passed through the barrier and less drag through the air, and without detonation I'm quite sure you're quite wrong and that depending on the speed of the sled prior to impact, a half mile is not a stretch at all. Notice the forward momentum and upward trajectory of the blu-109 (2 inches wider and 1000 lbs heavier than a JASSM) after penetrating the wall, but prior to detonation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR1okYYacSo

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
"Why would they plant a beacon in the ground when the first missile would quite likely have moved the beacon? Just askin'."
Moved maybe, but it quite not sure it would still be functional after the impact.


Of course, which is why they would either need to plant two beacons, one on each end of the planned impact site, or plant one in the warhead. Either option was possible using off the shelf technology available at the time.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
"Why would red flags be raised about anything I present, that is unless someone has preconceptions they're already struggling with?"
It is your indecent pushy style making impression you must be right for whatever price and becoming defensive whenever have objections to your version.

Please, unlike some I am not that thin-skinned. Projections will get you nowhere.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
"The woods were a conundrum for me, granted but other than that the evidence supports this conclusion quite nicely."
A scientific method is not about confirmation bias, it is about falsification - if one single fact impairs a hypothesis viability, no matter how much other evidence you have the hypothesis is moot until you find out how your hypothesis can get over it -here over the trees.


It is by using the scientific method that I arrived at multiple missiles; I examined the evidence and researched what projectile could account for it. The 10-degree trajectory was just a starting figure based on the NASA crater examples. Being the scientific method if the actual trajectory turns out to be more than than the original estimate, so what? The next step would be in calculating whether that trajectory could account for the gash. I believe it can. You believe it can't but you're a bit premature if you say it's not possible.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
"Let's say you're right and they did indeed plant a targeting beacon in the ground. This would be much stealthier than planting a bomb, not to mention digging a ditch in advance"
There it look from the 1994 photo, that indeed the point of impact has different texture than its surroundings suggesting somebody was digging there, possibly burrying something - at the very same place where later the plane parts were found (green circle).


They had been reclaiming the space by back filling the open strip mine. This is really the only thing you have going for your buried bomb and plane parts hypothesis.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
"I digress - back to the woods: I know the gash appearance fits my missile conclusion but the woods were a problem and were one of the reasons I contracted an engineer. I need to know what minimum trajectory would be attained by a cruise missile cruising just above tree-level before its terminal dive. Additionally, what I need to know (and what I don't know) was how much the warhead would be deflected by the ground."

It very much depends on the compactness of the soil, compactness and geometry of the underlying bedrock, geometry of the missile and warhead tips, impact angle, momentum of the missile and warhead given by the impact speed. There are too many unknowns for this. One must go backwards - find the geometry of the gash and then try with what conditions it would get out from the missile impact like it is and whether such conditions are in realm of possible. I tend to believe they are for the impact from the eastern side at high incidence angle, but for the other side I can't much imagine anything flying 100s of m/s to 1. twice change trajectory dozens of degrees at mere couple of dozens of meters distance travelled to get into the high incidence angle attitude and 2. make impact from exactly opposite direction than the first missile - I strongly don't tend to believe something like this is possible for a cruise missile.


I am well aware what is needed to prove what happened but I believe there is enough evidence to say this is the most likely explanation.

The fact that you strongly don't tend to believe something like this is possible is NOT the scientific method. Condemnation without investigation...

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
"Look at the official story: "flight 93 buries into the ground and the cockpit exploded like shrapnel, shattering and igniting the trees a hundred feet in the distance".
BS. Did anybody have seen something like that? I very strongly doubt it. The whole 47m plane would be gone in quarter of second at the speeds suggested by the last subframe in the FDR data, not speaking about cockpit. Only what this quote shows is poor understanding of the one who wrote it and that the one definitely haven't seen the impact.


See, you really are struggling with preconceptions. Yes it is B.S., but that was the claim. Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsJ0EFezBW4

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
"Were the burned, split and broken trees the result of a missile strike that clipped a tree?"
I doubt it, it looks more like an explosion caused it. If so, the missile would never make it to the ground because explosives in its warhead likely have much higher detonation velocity (hypersonic) than was the speed of the missile.



Agreed. I think the detonation in the trees was deliberate but I can't be sure whether it went off course and was detonated to avoid an embarrassing situation. There's really no way to know whether it was an aborted attempt or intentional so I'm leaving both options open. Personally I believe the missile that hit the trees was the one Susan McElwain described. I think this based on her location relative to the crash site and by considering the turning radius of the missiles (not so good from what I understand)


QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
"How much would the ground have deflected the warhead? Would the resultant trajectory miss the trees?"
From geometry of the gash I find it highly unlikely. From the photographs of the scene it looks they were too tall to miss.


I'm not so sure and am working on modeling the area using the available images.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
"In a terminal dive, would the trees even be in an issue to a 900-lb bullet?"
Not for bullet, but for a wingy missile - it definitely would not have the maneuvrability to get through intact - and there are no broken trees in the line of the gash. They are considerably more south. A warhead alone has no propulsion to change trajectory after the missile would clip the trees there, not speaking change trajectory in such way to exacly hit from exactly opposite side than the first missile would hit to make the nice straiht line of the two gashes. That's highly unlikely to impossible.


The fuselage and wings were made of fiber composites and in a terminal dive it would be akin to a big bullet with flimsy wings that would likely snap off on impact but I doubt deflect the warhead much if at all. When when looking at the woods there are areas with predominantly shorter trees that appear to fall along the path the missile would have to have taken. The warhead alone in its terminal dive would behave like a bomb and continue along its trajectory until it impacted something massive enough to deflect it.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
This looks to me like jumping to a conclusion which is pretty not supported by available evidence. There are no broken trees in the line of the gash.


To me it looks like you're the one who jumped to a conclusion. I didn't wake up one day and say "hey missiles are the answer", it was the evidence that brought me here. That and doing my best to examine it without any preconceptions.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
I'm not sure what it can prove, a bullet is not a wingy cruise missile - having aerodynamic maneuvrability, but pretty surely unable to fly through forest of trees (woods).


It would only need to miss the tops of the bigger trees. The wingspan of the missile is purportedly 7ft 11 inches, the fuselage is 18 inches and the warhead is 12 inches. How widely spaced are the tops of those taller trees?

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
It looks pretty straight to me when I don't do perspective tricks on picture depicting variable depth holes.


"Perspective tricks?" I don't do such things but I do know that untrustworthy people are often suspicious of others. What you are mistaking as a perspective trick was just me drawing two straight lines from the ends of the gashes following the respective gullies towards the center hole.

Here it is with a straight line from end to end. Still not so straight.



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
But there are no broken trees in the line of the gash:


Then it either didn't hit them or if it did it didn't cause any visible damage to them.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
I think a deflection of 20 would be very possible, because the compressibility of the bedrock would be much lower than the soil above (especially if it was losen by digging just years before) and the leading edge of the penetrator warhead casing tip would be very much expected to be bullet like rounded conical (because such geometry facilitates the penetration and at the same time prevents tip destruction even upon high speed impacts because the conical hole it bores compresses the tip from all sides keeping so its shape more or less intact and shielding the charges and detonator behind from shattering and although the pressures there could be tremendous at the moment of penetration the detonator lodged in the high explosive charge would not tend to displace its parts around paradoxicaly kept together and intact by the pressures if designed to withstand them - at least for the hundredths of second the penetration usually lasts - and then fire the charge whenever the accelerometer detects drop in overfreight indicating it is behind the fortification, usually a reinforced concrete) so on high incidence angle of the impact in fact the tip geometry would be very much helping such deflection by diferent drag dynamics of the penetrated material below (less compressible and having even less compessible materials beneath) and above (more compressible and having not much reacting force from above - because there is the air) which would lift the whole warhead back out from the ground if the impact angle relatively to level would be higher than the tip conicity angle, in fact the momentum of the high density penetrator warhead would definitely be enough for something like that happen, and moreover such result in my opinion is much more likely than that the warhead would come to rest from 100s of meters speed at just some couple of meters penetration of a loosen soil. Mind that penetrators are designed to penetrate thick heavy reinforced targets, but this capabilty work best only at closely to frontal impact, a high incidence impact would always tend to cause a non-negligible deflection.


Here's an article from 1997 patent describing an invention of a new warhead designed to attain maximum penetration even though not striking at an optimal angle. The nose is asymmetrically shaped to compensate for a 45-65 degree impact, requiring the missile to be oriented so that the bottom portion is pointing down.

QUOTE
According to further features in preferred embodiments of the invention described below, the nose section includes a portion which projects forward such that during impact of the missile with a target, the portion of the nose is the first to make contact with the target.
The warhead is intended for use in a roll-stabilized, position-controlled, guided missile or projectile designed to penetrate a hardened concrete target or other highly resistant targets.
Roll-stabilization relates to the keeping of the angular position of the missile about its axis roughly constant. Position control relates to ensuring that the missile is oriented so that the top portion is pointing up while the bottom portion is pointing down, i.e., to prevent the missile from flying
with the wrong roll angle.
http://www.google.com/patents/WO1997007379A2?cl=en


http://www.google.com/patents/EP0845098B1?cl=en

The JASSM surely fits the description of a roll-stabilized missile, and the oddly-shaped nose gives a clue as to the asymmetrically shaped nose of the warhead:



When comparing deflection predictions of impacts on sloped armor, I doubt a warhead would be deflected 20 degrees by soil but it would really depend on the angle of attack, the shape of the warhead, the density of the projectile and the composition of the soil. After several years of settling, the rocky back fill looks hard and dry, not loosely-packed.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
You somehow forgot your age... I'm 43, I've researched terrorism for my doctoral thesis since 1997, promoted in spring 2001, thesis published 2002, but never buying into the official propaganda I lost my career before it really started researching 9/11 independently, for some time colaborating on the Czech-Slovak 9/11 research page 911blog.yweb.sk until it was shut down and also getting a member here - the only 9/11 site which never deleted my posts although we had loads of misunderstandings, disagreements and heated arguments here including with Rob.


I was ignoring your irrelevant question about my age. I am well used to people trying to ignore the evidence and make the discussion about me, and doing so does nothing to help your credibility nor mar the impact of the evidence I bring to the table. Suffice to say I am old enough to remember the military bragging about putting smart bombs through open windows and down chimneys. How very nice for you to have memorized so much state indoctrination that you have achieved a doctorate. Has this level of indoctrination made you less-likely to think independently or more-likely?

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
Neither there is evidence of dual cruise missile impact and the close tree line from one side there more or less renders something like that very unlikely.


Your incredulity is noted but it doesn't change the fact that there is plenty of evidence to support multiple missiles.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 7 2014, 10:07 AM) *
It is 12 and something years from 9/11.
Before 9/11 I was i.e. looking into the WTC93 bombing and OKC bombing and yes already then I've realized there are many fishy things about this events and I very much suspected a govt. involvement. I was almost thrown from the university when I wanted to involve the topics in my thesis, I was fervently fought by the thesis supervisor and been called many names and even explicitely labeled mentally ill and that I belong to mental hospital in front of all my fellow colleagues just when trying explain things. Funny is that after I anyway obtained all the diplomas the same guy then was initially suddenly inviting me to speak about the issue immediately after 9/11, but when realizing my opinion is really not leaning towards UBL and boxcutterguys tale any interest very quickly faded.
In fact the 9/11 was not much a surprise to me, I felt a really major attack on US targets possibly even on US soil against major targets is imminent years before 2001 and even then it was clear to me that it would be for creating pretext for finishing the unfinished job by the Gulf war and after seeing the events unfolding live in TV more or less from the beginning I expressed my opinion it was a domestic false flag govt. sponsored operation the very same day, just hours after the fact when asked by my to death frightened American friend - already because with my then I admit fragmentary knowledge in general I absolutely couldn't imagine how an operation of such proportions could have been made by a goverment independent terrorist organization and without at least a complicity at the domestic level -also because taught in radar technology and airdefense procedures in college times back in 1980s it was quite impossible for me to understand why the planes weren't intercepted - although only much later discovering in the radar data the fighterjets were indeed there in the air, moreover in almost ideal positions to intercept the first two planes, not speaking that even if they weren't I hardly can imagine US shore regions not to be covered by SAM interceptors for the case primary intercept procedures would be not viable or fail, which to this days I don't understand especially in the case of the 5gon attack - I don't believe it hadn't such defense capability - because even the last barracks in our country had such capability in 1980s and nobody would hesitate a second to down unidentified plane on the radar aiming at a major target the capital city and especially not in case others already have strucked multiple another major targets elsewhere more or less live on national TV.
Now it is already couple of years since I've retired from really active 9/11 research, after 10th anniversary I told myself there is a little chance to have the perps ever prosecuted, not speaking that I'm seriously haunted by certain circles since I co-masterminded an extensive political action against the totalitarian euroconstitution reintroduced in 2008 after the failed referendums in 2006, which was much less remote problem at the time for us in Europe than a 9/11, so I don't even have time and conditions for a serious 9/11 research since. And anyway I'm primarily a scientist, not a propagandist who strives to change peoples minds by a tactics for whatever price. For me a simple definition of freedom is to have own things in own hands including mind. Peoples mind is their responsibility. I only look for facts I could present them and possibilities they could imply which I can imagine - what people make from it is their business and nothing what I really want to manipulate. Because an ignorance is impossible to be cured - although I'm trained by world's best teacher in best known methods designed for overcoming it for oneself it is anyway not easy. My primary expertise is in field of psychology, so I know a bit about it and that there is no shortcut on the path from the proverbial cave. And anyway after the years I don't believe that most of people are so stupid that they don't realize there are loads of fishy things about 9/11 and numerous other nasty things the govts. do. I can imagine what potential ends their corruption can have for human civilization. But I think much more painful question is whether the people are able to realize the imminent danger for their ways of decent life and do something decisive about before it is too late - and I'm (after all that years experiencing for example the 9/11 truthe movement and the widespread absence of sobriety in judging the available facts, making plausible conclusions and taking a viable action, unability to see larger picture, turning itself at marginal details, unable to admit mistakes and move on and instead repeating the same BS's of the Judywoodo kinds into oblivion and firing egregious insults around upon slightest disagreements resulting in neverending division driven by the worst kind of ignorance among people, the ignorance of good manners) pretty skeptical...


Ah...its less likely.
You sure talk a good game but when it all boils down you are supporting the "planes dunnit" meme (at least at the WTC), and you are so enamored by authority (as evidenced by your swinging creds) that you turn to them for redress despite their being the most likely suspects. Complaining about manners doesn't mask your arrogant and condescending attitude, or the fact that efforts like yours are why the ironically-named truth movement hasnt come anywhere closer to solving this puzzle than on 9/12/2001. A real movement that was actually interested in the truth would consider changing tactics after such a dismal failure. Perhaps its not a failure?

This post has been edited by yankee451: Feb 8 2014, 04:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Feb 8 2014, 09:17 PM
Post #57





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



QUOTE
There is no grass growing in the gash as the photos prove.

The photos prove that there is grass in the ravine.
QUOTE
If there were 'too many' critical thinkers here even one of them could explain why the grass is not filling the whole ditch and is only visible rolling over the undermined edge of the crater and in clumps of soil that rolled back into the gash. Why isn't the whole thing filled with the tall grass blades? Not enough sun?
Are you serious? The missile (a missile, one missile, the single missile) burnt the grass where it is burnt and did not burn the grass where it is still standing.

QUOTE
Tuma's photo proves nothing of the sort, from that angle and distance a terrain hugging missile like a JASSM wouldn't have any issue. If that trajectory turns out to be greater than 10 degrees fine, I don't doubt it would still be shallow enough to create the gash. Thinking critically, what angle of attack do you think would be needed to clear the trees?
45

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 9 2014, 12:58 AM
Post #58





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



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 8 2014, 05:17 PM) *
The photos prove that there is grass in the ravine. Are you serious? The missile (a missile, one missile, the single missile) burnt the grass where it is burnt and did not burn the grass where it is still standing.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 9 2014, 02:25 AM
Post #59





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



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 8 2014, 05:17 PM) *
The photos prove that there is grass in the ravine. Are you serious? The missile (a missile, one missile, the single missile) burnt the grass where it is burnt and did not burn the grass where it is still standing.


In this video it can be seen the grass rolls over the edge of the gash but not IN the gash, just as I described. It can also be seen that the gash nearer the trees was noticeably shorter than the one in the open field, indicating the missile coming over the trees had a steeper angle of attack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRHimxtwKxo

This post has been edited by yankee451: Feb 9 2014, 02:28 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 9 2014, 10:07 AM
Post #60





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 8 2014, 02:17 PM) *
45

yeah, the westernmost visible point of dammage visible in the video is at about the edge of the road:

Which is about 20 meters from the trees:

Which would imply 45 angle to clear the trees in case they were 20m high. If higher then of course the angle would need to be even steeper.
But the western leg of the gash itself is around 15m long:

Which definitely doesn't look like something impacted there at 45 angle and especially in a case of asymmetrically tipped warhead designed to penetrate targets at higher angles would mean the missile would rather bury itself deep - for which it is designed - then create a gash on the surface at least 15m long and at max couple of meters deep, which would imply impact angle <<20. So to argument with the high incidence angle penetration cappability of the missile in fact also doesn't help the "dual missile impact" conjecture.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th October 2019 - 04:07 PM