Hunt the Boeing II - Shanksville edition

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The ground was also a former strip mine, thus I would suspect that it was a little less consolidated than if it were undisturbed soil. (i.e. looser)

Looser? What the heck does that mean? Did you guys by the government's "soft dirt" baloney? It's not like that area was just filled in. The place was abandoned 10 years prior. Grass had regrown over the entire area. How can earth stay "soft" after ten years of rain, wind, gravity, and roots from the grass?

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by IrvingTheExplainer
Surely, there must be sattelite images of this area on 9/11. There seemed to be a few "after the fact" images of the Pentagon and WTC that day.

Here's an image gallery of the Shanks crash. They have a few aerial photos.

Thanks, but I was thinking about shots of the event as it happend. I was wondering if there were any sattelite images of any of the events of 9/11 as they happend.

Originally posted by IrvingTheExplainer

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by IrvingTheExplainer
Surely, there must be sattelite images of this area on 9/11. There seemed to be a few "after the fact" images of the Pentagon and WTC that day.

Here's an image gallery of the Shanks crash. They have a few aerial photos.

Thanks, but I was thinking about shots of the event as it happend. I was wondering if there were any sattelite images of any of the events of 9/11 as they happend.

I don't know of any.

One thing though I just noticed at that gallery site, check out the old satelite photo were it says "Dark scar is 1994 earthwork, near the crash location". Interesting that scar is exactly at the same spot as where the crater is from 9/11 and maybe more interesting is wasn't there some weird mark on the Pentagon's lawn seen in another satelite photo taken right before the attacks?

Originally posted by diggs
An A-6 is 100 ft shorter in length than a 757. Not the best comparison. And until I see some good photos of the scene, I can only take your word and I don't really trust anybody's word.

I tell you what, why don't you answer all the question in that challenge. I'm curious of your answers.

So because it's 100 feet shorter then it's going to react totally different in the same type of impact? Whether it's shorter or not the two planes are going to react the same way when they hit the same way. They're going to compress into small bits of wreckage, and bury themselves deep in the ground.

Originally posted by Zaphod58So because it's 100 feet shorter then it's going to react totally different in the same type of impact?

Whether it's shorter or not the two planes are going to react the same way when they hit the same way. They're going to compress into small bits of wreckage, and bury themselves deep in the ground.

Well it's 1/3 the length of a 757, so 3x more likely to be able to be buried before a 757 could.

Your buried theory leaves a lot of holes. Care to take the challenge I posted and answer all of it's questions?

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The ground was also a former strip mine, thus I would suspect that it was a little less consolidated than if it were undisturbed soil. (i.e. looser)

Looser? What the heck does that mean? Did you guys by the government's "soft dirt" baloney? It's not like that area was just filled in. The place was abandoned 10 years prior. Grass had regrown over the entire area. How can earth stay "soft" after ten years of rain, wind, gravity, and roots from the grass?

A reclaimed strip mine means that they basically pushed the spoil piles back into the hole and planted trees and grass to control erosion.

The backfill is not generally compacted unless you are planning to build on it. Reclaimed mine sites bear little resemblance to natural soil. BTW, I am talking of at least ten feet, if not more of backfill. This was a strip mine. Grass roots would have little impact on the deeper backfill zones.

I’m sure that there was some settlement, but that doesn’t negate the fact that we are talking about uncompacted backfill.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The backfill is not generally compacted unless you are planning to build on it. Reclaimed mine sites bear little resemblance to natural soil. BTW, I am talking of at least ten feet, if not more of backfill. This was a strip mine. Grass roots would have little impact on the deeper backfill zones.

I’m sure that there was some settlement, but that doesn’t negate the fact that we are talking about uncompacted backfill.

This "soft dirt" theory as if this is the reason how a 155 ft plane could be entirely swallowed up in the ground is so absurd. But I do realize why the gov't creates such absurdities because most people will buy and run with them to explain away all the oddities of 9/11. Kind of like the hijackers just learning how to fly in mid-air and not learning how to take off or land.

That area a dirt was refilled TEN YEARS BEFORE THE ATTACKS. Rain, wind, and plane old gravity would slowly compact the ground over ten years. Why would it be any different the any virgin soil around the area that just had rain, wind, roots, and gravity to compact it?

If it was so soft at the time of impact as everybody claims, I'm surprised none of the crash crew there in the white and yellow jumpsuits didn't partially sink into the ground when then were standing on this "loose" ground! (Sorry for the wise crack.)

People who think this 757 was swallowed up in the ground leaves a lot of holes in the official story and I noticed that none of the people on here who believe the official story has cared to take the challenge and answer all of the questions it posed.

Originally posted by diggs

That area a dirt was refilled TEN YEARS BEFORE THE ATTACKS. Rain, wind, and plane old gravity would slowly compact the ground over ten years. Why would it be any different the any virgin soil around the area that just had rain, wind, roots, and gravity to compact it?

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Without a mechanical force to compact it, backfilled soils are nothing like virgin soils, no matter how long ago they were put down. Ten years? hah, nothing.

Iv'e dealt with backfilled areas much older than that, and they have no where near the same properties as virgin soils.

DIGGS :

why are you posting a picture of a single engine which fell free and hit a TARMAC roadway as beeing " similar " to the shanksville crash ???????

shanksville was a feild CREATED from a reclaimed mining site by backfilling the workings with scrap soil

the picture of the engine you show hit a tarmac surface buit on a compacted aggregate bed -- hardly similar , not even close

next -- the characteristivs of ONE engine mass 4tons plus is RADICALLY different to the characteristics of an entire plane

dont you realise that a single body of 50 tons plus , behaves very differently to a collection of smaller bodies of 50 tons total displacement

now you bring up the aledged "similarites "to panam 103 would you care to adress why panam 103 impacted over a VAST area after break up at altitude , whereas flight 93 augered in intact ??

i am unsure of your position on the " was it shot down " question -- so i guess now is the time to ask .

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Without a mechanical force to compact it, backfilled soils are nothing like virgin soils, no matter how long ago they were put down. Ten years? hah, nothing.

well I tell you what then, since we don't agree on this, why don't you take the challenge I posted and try to answer all the questions. Everybody as been AVOIDING that so far.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
DIGGS :

why are you posting a picture of a single engine which fell free and hit a TARMAC roadway as beeing " similar " to the shanksville crash ???????

i am unsure of your position on the " was it shot down " question -- so i guess now is the time to ask .

No, the other person was asking where was the engines from Pan Am 103. I don't think those crashes are very similar either.

About the shot down theory, my feelings is that nothing was shot down around there since anything being shoot down would leave a noticeable smoke trail continously going up in the sky for everybody to see when the fuel tanks hit the ground. I don't think they could hide that even in a sparcely populated area there. Hope that was what you were asking.

DIGGS : appologis , i kind of misread

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
DIGGS : appologis , i kind of misread

oh no worries. it's hard to follow these threads sometimes especially when people through in apples to try to compare them with oranges. I've notice the anti-conspiracy crowd seems to do that alot. But hey, maybe they think the pro-conspiracy crowd does that too!

Originally posted by diggs
Care to take the challenge I posted and answer all of it's questions?

What questions?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

What questions?

Man I swear, some of you people. The questions in the link that I posted at the start of this thread, there are seven of them:

Hunt the Boeing II! Shanksville edition!

Question 1

The two photographs show rescue workers examining an impact crater just after the crash. The average height of a man is about 6ft. We may observe that the crater is only about 10ft deep.

Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200 with a length of 155ft, weighing over 100 tons, and crashing 580mph* at nearly a 90-degree angle straight into the ground made a crater only 10ft deep?

The above question is based on the following premises

1) The man is standing in the bottom of the crater.
2) That the angles somehow indicate that the depth of the crater is only 10 feet.

No data is provided to support these premises. Therefore, the question as presented is invalid.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Question 1

The above question is based on the following premises

1) The man is standing in the bottom of the crater.
2) That the angles somehow indicate that the depth of the crater is only 10 feet.

No data is provided to support these premises. Therefore, the question as presented is invalid.

Well then how deep do YOU think the crater is. I would agree that it's about 10 ft deep from all the photos I've seen compared to the people next to it. I'd almost say it's less the 10 ft deep.

Also, are you going to answer the rest of the seven questions, or just stop after the 1st?

Question 2

The photograph above shows the open field around the crater.

Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

The extreme range of the photograph makes it hard to distinguish anything, let alone an aircraft that impacted in a straight down dive. The question is misleading and pointless.

Question 3

The first photograph in question 2 shows the smoke plume from the crash in Shanksville. The bottom photographs show the smoke from two military ordnance blasts and smoke from a crash of a small leer jet.
Does the color and shape of the smoke plume from the Shanksville crash look more like the smoke from the leer jet crash or from the ordnance blasts?

Invalid comparison. Killtown has not provided any evidence to justify the comparison of the flight 93 crash with the leer jet crash.

Since I doubt that the dynamics of the two crashes were similar, I cannot accept the comparison as valid.

Question 4

The first image in question 4 shows in an aerial view of the crater. The image below is a close-up view of the crater. Notice that there is still long grass growing all around the crater and right up to the crater's edge.

You'll remember the photo in question 3 showing the smoke and fire from the crash of the leer jet.

Can you explain why the estimated 6,000 thousand gallons of jet fuel still remaining in the airplane at the time of impact didn't burst into flames and scorch the grass growing around the crater?

The first picture does not show the trees in the background which were scorched and burnt. The second shot also does not show this. The second shot is from the upwind side of the site.

Given the extreme telephoto lens used in the shot, it is hard to determine exactly how far the grass is from the edge of the impact crater.

Furthermore, the force of the impact which buried the aircraft components also would have buried the liquid fuel.