Prove that bulk of UA93 buried itself into the ground

There is this extraordinary claim floating around that the bulk of the airplane at Shanksville buried itself into the ground which means it would be resting under the shallow crater in this field:



OK, let's see some extraordinary proof to support this extraordinary claim.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by ATH911]

Dude, turbofan already started a thread about this topic.

Reheat - Hole in the ground

There's probably no need to duplicate it all again in another thread.

Reheat wasn't able to prove his point in the other thread, he's not going to do it here either.

Lock/delete the thread?

Originally posted by tezzajw
Reheat wasn't able to prove his point in the other thread, he's not going to do it here either.

He wasn't able to because he can't. No one can because no 757 buried itself into that field. If one did, it would be sooooo obvious.

I edited the post to make it more general.

Prove that the bulk of Flight 93 buried itself into the ground as claimed by skeptics.

If the bulk of a 757 did that, it should be super easy to prove.

reply to post by ATH911


Well, for once you're right. I can't prove it. However, Chuck Wagner and the approximately 1199 others who participated in the recovery effort can prove it.
United Airlines can prove it too, since they have what's left of the airplane. I'm sure you've told them they are in on the conspiracy and that they didn't lose that airplane on 9/11. I'm sure they will be impressed with "Internet Sleuths" who know better.

pittsburgh.about.com...

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by ATH911

 

Well, for once you're right.

For once? Where have I been wrong?

I can't prove it.

Then don't make the claim.

However, Chuck Wagner and the approximately 1199 others who participated in the recovery effort can prove it.

Did help dig the alleged plane out?

United Airlines can prove it too, since they have what's left of the airplane.

How does that prove the bulk of the plane was buried?

I'm sure you've told them they are in on the conspiracy and that they didn't lose that airplane on 9/11.

I never said they didn't loose a plane on 9/11.

I'm sure they will be impressed with "Internet Sleuths" who know better.

I'll be impressed when someone proves to me that the bulk of a 757 is buried under that crater in the field.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by ATH911]

Question about this claim of a 757 burying, wouldn't there be a hole in the ground where you can see this buried 757 instead of a shallow crater as if a bomb hit the ground?



Wouldn't that guy seen standing in the crater fall down into the hole if a 757 tunneled down below it?

[edit on 13-6-2009 by ATH911]

reply to post by ATH911


Not if the hole is filled with dirt and remains of the plane! Also, while I a dubious myself about the fate of that plane, there is nothing in that picture that is anomolous.. dirt will fall back into the hole and fill it up rather easily.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by ATH911

 

Not if the hole is filled with dirt and remains of the plane! Also, while I a dubious myself about the fate of that plane, there is nothing in that picture that is anomolous.. dirt will fall back into the hole and fill it up rather easily.

Who filled it back in with dirt?

reply to post by ATH911


Gravity did.

Are you really one of those kind of people who cannot ever be wrong or see another person's point of view? Seriously, read some of your threads again. There's valour in questioning things, but when you demand that everyone prove and backup every phrase they write with scientific studies from multiple scientists as well as video and photographic evidence with a full chain of custody that is just going overboard. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Forget it. I am just going back to ignoring your threads. Can't believe I let myself get sucked back into another one.

rogerstigers....I got nothing for you.

ATH911

I think another aspect you could use for your debates would be the fact that the hole itself shows very little burn especially in the light of the scorched forest. I have a burn pile in my back yard with earth more scorched than this strip mine scar. If the Official story is to be believed then aluminum hot enough to melt buildings should be hot enough to scorch the earth from wing tip to wing tip. Right? And then their is no scorched earth from alleged impact site that goes into the path of the trees.

Whats your thoughts?

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by ATH911

 

Gravity did.

Gravity? But the dirt that would have had to been ejected out of the ground when the multi-ton plane burrowed through it would have ejected out to the sides and the if dirt somehow fell back in a hole, it wouldn't leave a bowl shape of a classic crater as if a bomb hit the ground. It also wouldn't be packed back down and there would be a big hump in the ground from all the dirt being pushed up if a plane is under it.

Are you really one of those kind of people who cannot ever be wrong or see another person's point of view?

I just asked you a question.

Forget it. I am just going back to ignoring your threads. Can't believe I let myself get sucked back into another one.

Sounds like you're not too confident with your explanation.

Originally posted by titoriteATH911

I think another aspect you could use for your debates would be the fact that the hole itself shows very little burn especially in the light of the scorched forest.

Whats your thoughts?

That's one of the MANY oddities about the Shanksville site. Please start a thread on the lack of fire damage to the field!

i will post it in this thread as well

why it cannot bury itself

think of water, if you fall fast enough into water it behaves like concrete , crushing your body and killing you instantly

but this isnt a little human body, its a jet airliner
and this isnt water, its Dirt (way thicker)

do not believe water behaves like a solid?

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

"The difference is due to the fact that it takes a finite
amount of time for the water in the path of the diver to move out of the
way of the diver and the water the diver displaces as she/he enters the
water. If the water cannot "get out of the way" it begins to behave as
though it were a solid. At 10 meters this depends upon the technique of
the diver.If the speed of the diver at the instant of entry becomes greater (as his/her altitude becomes greater) the less time the water has to "get out of the way" as the diver hits the water. If the water cannot be displaced, it begins to behave as though it were a solid. The same
principles also apply if the fluid is a gas."

Dear god muzzleflash that is an excellent point and if I could make this my favorite post in ATS I would... The physics you speak of a solid and your .gov reference is genius... Of course it could only come from a fellow texan.



So debunkers Now that we have established the laws of physics what else say yall?

reply to post by muzzleflash


I must admit you made me curios never really took the time to look into the crash and have to say i think your right. From what i was looking at id say the plane didn't burrow its more like it hit and bounces pieces. i was reading one engine was found 2000 feet away from the crash sight and light weight debris as far as 8 miles. I'm not sure what the official report said didn't go that far yet by from what i read i can assure you the entire plane was not in that hole. Also well doing some reading on this also rules out a shoot down the debris field is far to small for that.

In my opinion you might have had parts drive themselves into the dirt but i think most of the plane hit and bounced seen this happen to a Humvee who's parachute failed. You would be amazed how far things can fly when they hit the earth from altitude.

also thought id add if this plane did impact hard enough to make a crater you should be abled to determine if the areas they found plane parts matches the shape of the crater becuase i was thinking if they did hit and bounce the crater shape should let you know where they bounced to.

[edit on 6/14/09 by dragonridr]

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I must admit you made me curios never really took the time to look into the crash and have to say i think your right. From what i was looking at id say the plane didn't burrow its more like it hit and bounces pieces.

Officials did say most buried. About 80 percent of the plane. That's the official account.

i was reading one engine was found 2000 feet away from the crash sight

It went from a whole engine having to be towed out of the woods to just an engine part found in the cold water pond. But either way, there's no photographic proof of any engine found away from the crater. The other problem is how would it have gotten there past the wall of trees and dense forest.

i can assure you the entire plane was not in that hole.

Agreed, and that proves the official story a big lie.

In my opinion you might have had parts drive themselves into the dirt

No evidence any parts buried into the ground

but i think most of the plane hit and bounced

If that happened, you'd have to account for the official 95 percent of the plane recovered and there is nothing close to that amount on the field or in the forest.

also thought id add if this plane did impact hard enough to make a crater you should be abled to determine if the areas they found plane parts matches the shape of the crater becuase i was thinking if they did hit and bounce the crater shape should let you know where they bounced to.

Wally Miller says Flight 93's cockpit broke off and the rest of the plane tunneled into the ground. He says that's what officials told him happened.

reply to post by ATH911


Plane was traveling at 580mph at impact - the fuel would still be traveling at that speed when tanks ruptured and fuel sprayed out. At that spped
much of the fuel would be aerosolized into a cloud which because of
the momentun would be projected FORWARD of the impact point.
The fuel cloud would be ignited into a fireball which would burn very
rapidly - every see a circus eater? Sprays flammable liquid from
his mouth and ignites it - impressive fireball yet does not get burned

Seen it up close when jet crashed in my town years ago and when rolled
up on scene with our fire trucks

An investigator for the board, Chauncey Twine, said the airplane crashed at an 80-degree angle, clipping trees and landing amid rocks and boulders at 3:15. An explosion followed, sending flames higher than treetops, residents said.

''If the angle of descent was not as great,'' Mr. Twine said, ''the fire would have spread. By impacting at that angle, it was fairly contained.''

Notice "higher than treetops" - yet fire did not spread to nearby
apartment buildings

Jeeeez, what do Boeing make these planes out of?, i`m no master of physics but surely an object of such magnitude hurtling towards it`s target would hit it with such force, it would shatter into millions of particles on impact?.

So far i`ve seen a plane cut through a solid steel building like the proverbial hot knife, a fibre glass nose punching through a total of about 3-4 metres of steel reinforced concrete, another hitting the planet with such force it managed to completely bury itself, also a tower just standing in the vicinity of these bad boys as they impact, collapsing in on itself.

Much kudos to Boeing here, these planes are beyond amazing.

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by ATH911

 

Well, for once you're right. I can't prove it. However, Chuck Wagner and the approximately 1199 others who participated in the recovery effort can prove it.United Airlines can prove it too, since they have what's left of the airplane. I'm sure you've told them they are in on the conspiracy and that they didn't lose that airplane on 9/11. I'm sure they will be impressed with "Internet Sleuths" who know better.
pittsburgh.about.com...

Reheat, Cam, any debunkers care to address these questions?

1. Where are the wing spars and tail section after they made the indentation into the ground?

They were a solid mass of course or they don't make the imprint, therefore we should be seeing nice sized pieces of debris within those indentations right? Or at least an amount of debris that equates to roughly the mass of the wings and tail sections.

1. Did they dig in and stay? How and Why? And please post evidence.

2. Did they dig in, fall apart and stay?How and Why? And please post evidence.

3. Did they dig in and then bounce back out and scatter?How and Why? And please post evidence.

4. None of the above. If you choose 4, please explain the logic behind choosing number 4.

This is the 3rd time I've posted these set of questions. The other two times were in the other thread posted above. Please answer these questions, as we would all certainly appreciate it.