Flight 93 - Soft Shanksville soil and other nonsense...

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Rewey

 

It is important to understand fully what happened to PanAm103.

Here's some more that I found on Pan Am 103, which I found important:

As it descended, the fuselage broke into smaller pieces, with the section attached to the wings landing first in Sherwood Crescent, where the aviation fuel inside the wings ignited, causing a fireball that destroyed several houses, and which was so intense that nothing remained of the left wing of the aircraft.

On the ground, 11 Lockerbie residents were killed when the wings, still attached by a piece of fuselage, hit 13 Sherwood Crescent at more than 500 mph and exploded, creating a crater (155 ft) long and with a volume of (730 yd³), vaporizing several houses and their foundations, and damaging 21 others so badly they had to be demolished."

This is what strikes me as odd. JUST THE WINGS left a crater of 730yd³, and 155ft long. It also 'vapourised houses'.

The 'official story' says that Flight 93 exploded as well, which was allegedly caught on camera by Val McClatchy.

Yet the ENTIRE PLANE only left a crater around 3m deep, and about 50-odd foot wide. And the same fuel which could allegedly 'vapourise houses and their foundation' didn't even burn the grass around the edge of the point of impact.

This is why the whole thing sounds like nonsense to me...

reply to post by Rewey


I remember addressing that somewhere, in reference to GenRadek's posts...I'm tired, going off soon.

Basically, it's still a matter of velocity. AND a great deal more fuel. AND different ground...in the neighborhood, built-up, paved, etc.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Rewey

 

Is that your way of acknowledging you misquoted me about the wall? Admittedly, it has been a year since I read the book, but they were discussing how bricks had been stacked two high before mortar was placed.

Actually - no. It just shows that my initial understanding was correct. I was asking if there was another way I could have interpreted it.

Look, here's a picture of a brick:




What's important here is the holes which run from TOP TO BOTTOM. There is virtually no sideways bond created by the mortar in laying a brick. The strength of the bond comes from the mortar partially filling inside these holes and curing, making a strong physical bond.

This photo shows what's called 'half-bond', where bricks overlay one half of each of the two bricks below them:




THIS IS WHAT GIVES A WALL sideways strength - the fact that the bond with the brick above and below prevents sideways movement.

So what you said in the first case, which I interpreted correctly and you just confirmed, is that bricks were stack 2-3 high, with only mortar at the bottom of the bottom brick, and the top of the top brick. This means there is an entire brick in the middle which has NO STRUCTURAL BEARING AT ALL because it doesn't have the mortar filling the holes, thereby bonding it with the brick above and below. Given that the top and bottom bricks are bonded means you can basically push the middle brick out very easily.

You should be able to imagine, therefore, how structurally weak a wall constructed like this would be, particularly when it is FIVE OR SO STORIES TALL.

Rewey

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Rewey

 

I remember addressing that somewhere, in reference to GenRadek's posts...I'm tired, going off soon.

Basically, it's still a matter of velocity. AND a great deal more fuel. AND different ground...in the neighborhood, built-up, paved, etc.

Different ground? Wouldn't that suggest that the GRASS is more resistant to burning jet fuel than HOUSES AND FOUNDATIONS? Foundations are made from concrete, or out of limestone blocks in older homes. 'Different ground' means that these were 'vapourised', whilst GRASS was left unburnt?

Not sure how that works...

Rewey

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Rewey]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'll just sat this about that; I think the speed and momentum trumps the "fireball" Any explosion, and expanding gases, wuld not be traveling as fast as the airplane...at least, after the intial burst.

Please supply your calculations and simulations to prove this claim, weedwhacker.

Could we clear something up real quick? Which wall was constructed with limited mortar? Was it the outer wall, as swampfox book suggests, or was in the inner walls, and weedwhacker stated?

Can someone clarify?

reply to post by Rewey


Yes during the decent, the aircraft broke up, with the forward section of the fuselage breaking off and plummiting to the ground along with engine #3. The wing section is what created the crater. A key difference here is that the fuel load was more in the 747 than the 757. However the 757 impacted intact, but it also is much smaller.

DOUBLE POST!

Sorry!

[edit on 6/29/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by Rewey


To make it fair, it would be a good idea to get a geologic surface map of both areas, to see the types of soils, sediments, and such, along with topography. If you are serious in investigating this further. They do have maps like this from the geologic surveys of the US and the UK I believe.

reply to post by tezzajw


Thank you tezz, seriously.

Ok, now I think I see the problem here. He said the "bulk" of it went into the crater and got buried. Now that is HIS idea. I am looking for any "official" accounts that also say this. Because so far it appears he only said it and it is not the "offical story".

You took it as him saying that that is exactly what happened according to the NTSB, FBI, etc, etc. Am I correct? I dont want to put words in your mouth tezz. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Thank you tezz, seriously.
Ok, now I think I see the problem here. He said the "bulk" of it went into the crater and got buried. Now that is HIS idea.

Yes, that was Reheat's claim. Reheat is one of the staunch official story believers who visits these threads. It would be interesting indeed if Reheat's opinion differs from the official story - wouldn't it?

Originally posted by GenRadek
You took it as him saying that that is exactly what happened according to the NTSB, FBI, etc, etc. Am I correct? I dont want to put words in your mouth tezz. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I don't know if the official story claims that the alleged Flight 93 was buried in the crater. However, Reheat claims it.

Furthermore, if the official story doesn't claim that the alleged Flight 93 was buried in the crater, then why is it claimed that parts from the alleged Flight 93 were dug out from the crater?

The only way that something can be dug out from a crater is if it has been buried under it.

reply to post by P1DrummerBoy


I will have to go back to the library and check the book back out. But I am pretty sure they were talking about the outer wall...just dont forget that the bricks had the limestone over them too.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Rewey

 

A key difference here is that the fuel load was more in the 747 than the 757. However the 757 impacted intact, but it also is much smaller.

Hmmm... I still feel that regardless of fuel load an entire 757-200 is still bigger than just the wings of the 747. I would think, that given there is unburnt grass in the F93 crater, that the majority of the crater would be created by impact and momentum, and not fuel explosion.

To make it fair, it would be a good idea to get a geologic surface map of both areas, to see the types of soils, sediments, and such, along with topography. If you are serious in investigating this further. They do have maps like this from the geologic surveys of the US and the UK I believe.

You're very right. I think the comparison of Pan Am 103 and Flight 93 possibly deserves a thread of its own. If you start one, I'll happily jump on board with it. I would like to do a lot more reading on Pan Am first...

I did a post a couple of pages ago that showed a soil-type map of the US, which indicated a high presence of 'utisols' in the Shanksville area, which I believe confirmed my analysis of the soil in the original report. It is the utisols, which have a high content of iron oxide (and thus the orange colour on the F93 engine which is some debate is dirt and some debate is rust), which lead to 'caking' or solidifying of the soil, as per the photos of the site.

I know I still have to amend the report to change details such as the carbon fibre tails for the planes, but I will add this in greater detail. Hopefully I will get to it this week. Wednesday night is clear for now...

Rewey

[edit on 30-6-2009 by mumblyjoe]

A SUMMARY OF THE THREAD SO FAR...

OK… it’s 8 pages in, and time to provide a summary of this thread so far:

1. So far, there has been NO rebuttal of the soil analysis provided in my original paper in the OP. It seems likely, therefore, that the analysis is correct, and that the ‘official story’ which claims that the alleged Shanksville crash site is composed of ‘soft’ or ‘loosely packed’ soil is utter nonsense.

2. There are NO OFFICIAL SOURCES which will refer to the marks at the Shanksville site as ‘wing imprints’, or similar.

3. As the ONLY way to remove jet fuel contamination from soil is to replace it with cleanfill, and the official report states that the site was re-filled with soil from the excavated crash site, there is virtually no possibility that the jet fuel spilled onto the ground around the crash site.

4. My paper talks about the aluminium skin of the plane, but some parts had carbon fibre skin – this is to be changed. Also some details about the Pentagon rings.

5. Swampfox provided DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE that the outer wall of the Pentagon was made of bricks with mortar applied every 2-3 bricks, giving it virtually no structural rigidity, yet it the wings of a plane moving at hundreds of miles per hour, and two engines weighing 3,300 kgs, simply folded up on impact, and were dragged through the hole made by the fuselage.

6. The OFFICIAL NIST report (link provided by Swampfox) into the structural failure of the Pentagon FAILED TO EVEN MENTION the potentially fatal flaw that the 5 storey outer wall was constructed with practically no mortar, yet managed to include an image of the plane impacting the building which showed the left engine traveling BELOW GROUND LEVEL, and carefully omitted the spools which were present on the Pentagon lawn.

7. Even though official sources have provided countless animations of the structural impact of the planes on the WTC and the Pentagon, which are clearly caught on numerous cameras, NOT ONE OFFICIAL SOURCE, in nearly 8 years, has provided a similar animation of the alleged Shanksville crash, presumably because it would highlight how ridiculous the official story is.

8. The fire from the crash was enough to burn the resin off the tail pieces, leaving just the carbon fibre, but not enough to burn the grass which was inside the point of explosion.

9. A plane over 124 feet wide crashed, leaving a crater only around 50 feet wide.

10. There are 60 Federal laws which specifically apply to coal mining, the most pertinent of which is the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 1977, which specifically states how strip mines are to be decommissioned, and returned to a STABLE LANDFORM, and to its PRE-MINING STATE. Therefore, the ‘official story’ that the ground was ‘loosely packed’ because of an old strip mine is utter nonsense.

11. Further evidence regarding the soil was provided in the form of a map showing a high presence of ‘utisols’ in the soil in the Shanksville area. Utisols are orange-red in colour, due to the high presence of iron oxides. These iron oxides leave the soil hard and compressed, which further proves the soil analysis in my paper, and further shows that the ‘official story’ of ‘loosely packed’ soil is utter nonsense.

12. JUST THE WINGS of a 747, free-falling at terminal velocity, left a crater 155 feet long, displacing 730yd³, but an ENTIRE BOEING 757-200, traveling at approximately 900 km/h only left a crater 50-odd feet wide, and 3 metres deep.

13. The exploding jet fuel from Pan Am 103 ‘vapourised’ NEARBY houses AND their foundations (made from steel-reinforced concrete or limestone blocks), but THE SAME JET FUEL exploding at Shanksville, allegedly captured on camera by Val McClatchy, failed to even burn grass INSIDE THE POINT OF EXPLOSION.

If I've missed anything, please feel free to add it. I'd still be interested in anyone providing alternative evidence as to the state of the soil...

Rewey

I, for one, would like to see someone re-write the popular children's tale of the Three Little Pigs using the events of 9/11. It would go something like this:

The first little piggy built his house out of Shanksville soil, but the big, bad wolf huffed, and puffed, and immediately displaced 406 tons of it.

The second little pig built his house out of limestone blocks and steel reinforced concrete, but the big, bad wolf huffed, and puffed, and vapourised it.

The third little pig built his house out of Pentagon bricks, but forgot to use mortar. The big, bad wolf huffed, and puffed, and STILL managed to get inside.

So they went to visit the fourth little pig, who had built his house out of Shanksville grass. The big, bad wolf had NO means of destroying the Shanksville grass, so the pigs lived happily ever after...

What do you reckon? Not even children would be dumb enough to buy that...

Rewey

Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't know if the official story claims that the alleged Flight 93 was buried in the crater. However, Reheat claims it.

Furthermore, if the official story doesn't claim that the alleged Flight 93 was buried in the crater, then why is it claimed that parts from the alleged Flight 93 were dug out from the crater?

The only way that something can be dug out from a crater is if it has been buried under it.

I think Reheat is just making an educated observation, based on common sense, critical thinking, and an understanding of physics.

The official story of Flight 93 does not mention anything getting buried, but think about it, why does that have to be specifically mentioned in the first place? Since when is THAT part so important in deciding if the crash happened or not? What Reheat has done is use reasoning to explain why parts from Flight 93 ended up buried in the crater. They did recover an engine, the black box, amongst other unmentioned debris. Now I'm just going to cut you off at this moment because I know what you are going to ask: "What other parts did they 'allegedly' recover from the crater?" Truth be told tezz, i dont know. If you want, you can try and contact those that were involved in the recovery effort to get an idea of what they recovered from the crater or underneath it or what have you.

What I cannot figure out tezz, is why is it so hard to understand the force and energy of the crash is what caused debris to be "buried" underground? You have a whole 757, traveling at 500mph in a nosedive. To say or think that no parts will be buried or completely destroyed into itty bitty pieces is ignorant. I earlier posted a picture of the # 3 engine from the PanAm 103 crash. It also made a crater in the ground and even punched through the street. Through a layer of asphalt and into the ground below. That occurred by free-fall alone. It was not attached to the aircraft at all when it impacted, it was all gravity that did the damage there. Using a little bit of common sense, whats going to happen if that engine is traveling at 500mph still connected to the aircraft? Of course its going to go deeper into the ground. (unless the ground is solid rock or steel) So when you have a 757 doing a nosedive @ 500mph into the ground, calculate the amount of force behind that. (if you want to really find out that is).

reply to post by Rewey


Rewey, it's not a case of who visits and posts in a thread. It's a case of who doesn't visit and post in a thread.

I bet there are some debunkers who have no way to refute anything that you've claimed - so their best option is to stay out of the thread... not bumping it and hoping that it drops off the front page.

As you can see, after 8 pages into the thread, there has been no serious attempt to debunk your findings.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by GenRadek
I think Reheat is just making an educated observation, based on common sense, critical thinking, and an understanding of physics.

I'm not sure it really is a good understanding of physics. I think my paper showed that something making impact at 40º (which IS the official story) is more likely to be deflected AWAY from the surface rather than further INTO the surface, and that a plane crashing at that angle should have slammed further onto its back. This HAS been seen with many plane crashes which hit at a similar angle. I think so many people refer to it as a 'nosedive', which removes the significance of the angle it actually hit at. Sure, the nose hit the ground first, but not a 'nosedive' in the traditional sense.

I also think it doesn't help when people say "it landed upside down at 40º, not the right way up at 40º". Does that mean they think the fuselage is made stronger at the bottom than it is at the top? The ANGLE is what is important with the crash.

I earlier posted a picture of the # 3 engine from the PanAm 103 crash. It also made a crater in the ground and even punched through the street. Through a layer of asphalt and into the ground below.

This is another point - it was in freefall, meaning it hit at 90º to the ground, and had NO sideways momentum. For a plane to hit at 40º, weighing in the order of 90 tons, at around 900km/h - there is MORE SIDEWAYS MOMENTUM than there is VERTICAL MOMENTUM. This is simple physics.

The diagram of the inclined plane in my paper showed this very clearly. At 45º, the SIDEWAYS and VERTICAL momentum would be the same, but at less than 45º (such as is the case here), there is MORE sideways momentum. Therefore, there is more force acting to push the plane sideways and flip it onto its back than there is to push it INTO the ground. When you add this to the SIMPLE FACT that there is less resistance from the air immediately surrounding the point of impact, than there is provided by the GROUND at the point of impact, means that forces are even more likely to follow the PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE, and the plane is even LESS likely to bury itself into the ground...

That's all simple, easily verifiable physics...

Rewey

Originally posted by Rewey

1. So far, there has been NO rebuttal of the soil analysis provided in my original paper in the OP. It seems likely, therefore, that the analysis is correct, and that the ‘official story’ which claims that the alleged Shanksville crash site is composed of ‘soft’ or ‘loosely packed’ soil is utter nonsense.

To be fair here, no rebuttals doesnt necessarily 'prove' anything, except that no one here is qualified to question it, or if they are, they know you are right. In any case, I think you've done an amazing job with this thread, and despite the knowledge of some folks here, no one has proven you wrong.

2. There are NO OFFICIAL SOURCES which will refer to the marks at the Shanksville site as ‘wing imprints’, or similar.

What's interesting about this is that there are wingprints in the WTC buildings, which was partly composed of steel girders (sp?), yet the 'soft soil' at shanksville shows no wings. Very strange, eh?

3. As the ONLY way to remove jet fuel contamination from soil is to replace it with cleanfill, and the official report states that the site was re-filled with soil from the excavated crash site, there is virtually no possibility that the jet fuel spilled onto the ground around the crash site.

This, in my honest opinion, is one of the strongest points of your (our) argument, and I thank you for looking into it. How could there have been so little jet fuel after the explosion with THIS plane to even burn the grass, yet, the debunkers all over this site will tell you that WTC 7 collapsed because the fires in that building were started from the fire engulfed debris from the towers??

4. My paper talks about the aluminium skin of the plane, but some parts had carbon fibre skin – this is to be changed. Also some details about the Pentagon rings.

This is what's great about your paper, is that when you are proven something is wrong about it, you don't hesitate to change it.

5. Swampfox provided DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE that the outer wall of the Pentagon was made of bricks with mortar applied every 2-3 bricks, giving it virtually no structural rigidity, yet it the wings of a plane moving at hundreds of miles per hour, and two engines weighing 3,300 kgs, simply folded up on impact, and were dragged through the hole made by the fuselage.

Here I'd like to point out that swampfox said he/she will be checking the book out again to be absolutely sure, as it may not have been the outer wall. However, is it WAS the outer wall, that is certainly interesting.

8. The fire from the crash was enough to burn the resin off the tail pieces, leaving just the carbon fibre, but not enough to burn the grass which was inside the point of explosion.

Again, this issue is very telling.

10. There are 60 Federal laws which specifically apply to coal mining, the most pertinent of which is the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 1977, which specifically states how strip mines are to be decommissioned, and returned to a STABLE LANDFORM, and to its PRE-MINING STATE. Therefore, the ‘official story’ that the ground was ‘loosely packed’ because of an old strip mine is utter nonsense.

And yet again, amazing research. This is the type of stuff that makes me a non believer of the OS. I think that some of these guys who we argue with here at ATS don't realize this stuff either. I'm somewhat shocked that this particular issue hasn't been scrutinized a bit more. I don't see how you can argue with these laws.

12. JUST THE WINGS of a 747, free-falling at terminal velocity, left a crater 155 feet long, displacing 730yd³, but an ENTIRE BOEING 757-200, traveling at approximately 900 km/h only left a crater 50-odd feet wide, and 3 metres deep.

It's been stated before that physics took the day off on September 11th, 2001.

13. The exploding jet fuel from Pan Am 103 ‘vapourised’ NEARBY houses AND their foundations (made from steel-reinforced concrete or limestone blocks), but THE SAME JET FUEL exploding at Shanksville, allegedly captured on camera by Val McClatchy, failed to even burn grass INSIDE THE POINT OF EXPLOSION.

MAY not have been the EXACT same jet fuel, but that detail is minor at best. This is another very interesting point.

Again, great thread, great paper, and I think for the most part the discussion didnt get too out of hand