9/11 POLL : Do You Believe a Boeing 757 Crashed in Shanksville?

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

The rest of the bodies were basically blasted into confetti.

How could that be if most of the plane was strong enough to tunnel down into the ground?

It's called Jet Cone Energy — the aircraft impacted at a velocity of somewhere between 350 and 500 mph, so it was already deeply imbedded in the loose soil before it exploded. In that split second, the conical impact crater DIRECTED the blast straight back out in the opposite direction. This is called the Jet Cone Effect, when the total output of a detonation is folded back onto itself and is spent in ONE DIRECTION. The effect amplifies the blast output exponentially.

Flight 93's explosion, therefore, was like that of a tremendous cannon shot, blasting lighter materials (such as human flesh and bone) back out of the crater into confetti. In point of fact, there was human tissue recovered all over the site, enough to make positive DNA identification on virtually ALL of the passengers of Flight 93.

Incidentally, I learned about Jet Cone Energy from a Marine demolitions expert who served in the Korean War. They used the effect to protect the perimeter of their camps, with directional explosives. They still use directional Claymore explosives for that same purpose.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 5/29/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Here's a simple experiment demonstrating the Jet Cone Effect, using a glass cone to direct a relatively small explosion in one direction...



As you can see, the resulting directed blast punches holes right through a thick slab of metal. The total output of the blast — rather than being dispersed in all directions — is shaped so that it is spent in only one direction.

The resulting directed blast does much more destruction than would a conventional open-air explosion.

The mass of Flight 93 created its own shape-charge, in other words, gouging out a deep, conical crater, followed by a directional explosion — the ensuing blast was, therefore, much more destructive and could easily vaporize 45 humans in an instant.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 5/29/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

It's called Jet Cone Energy — the aircraft impacted at a velocity of somewhere between 350 and 500 mph, so it was already deeply imbedded in the loose soil before it exploded. In that split second, the conical impact crater DIRECTED the blast straight back out in the opposite direction.

Wow, just wow. That's got to be the most colorful explanation I heard yet about this alleged crash!

1st of all, no official has given this explanation.

2nd, your "it embedded, then exploded" theory contradicts the landowner's statement about what allegedly happened to the fuselage after "crashing":

Because of their familiarity with the property, the Svonavecs were asked to work with the F.B.I. on recovery efforts. "We hired some extra people and worked one long shift, seven days a week," says Jim, a former federal mining inspector.
Using a Kobelco excavator, the process was slow and meticulous because “every bucket of material that was excavated went through screens,” explains Sally. Screening helped locate many body fragments and debris from the plane.
The plane "went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn," says Jim.

3rd, there's no evidence of dirt being blasted out of the ground in the 45 deg angle direction the plane supposedly crashed at. The only evidence of displaced dirt is the pile that was pushed off to the side in the direction of the trees. Coincidentally, this pile of dirt is the same amount that would fill back in the crater, thus proving nothing substantial was buried.

4th, officials say the earth fell back in on itself, thus covering the hole that would have been left by a 757 tunneling through the ground and leaving only a shallow 10ft deep crater. Now how can there be enough earth to fall back in on itself if it was blasted out of that hole as you contend?!

[edit on 29-5-2010 by ATH911]

Originally posted by ATH911
your "it embedded, then exploded" theory contradicts the landowner's statement about what allegedly happened to the fuselage after "crashing":

The plane "went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn," says Jim

Didn't burn, eh? Then how did so many eyewitnesses to the crash report an immense, window-shattering explosion and a huge "mushroom cloud"...? If it didn't explode, how did the shrubbery and trees on the perimeter of the crash catch on fire and were still burning when the first-responders arrived?

The explosion blasted back out of the crater, obviously.

Originally posted by ATH911
... displaced dirt is the pile that was pushed off to the side in the direction of the trees. Coincidentally, this pile of dirt is the same amount that would fill back in the crater, thus proving nothing substantial was buried.

And yet 65% of the plane was recovered underground, and another 30% above ground, blasted to smithereens.

Originally posted by ATH911
officials say the earth fell back in on itself, thus covering the hole that would have been left by a 757 tunneling through the ground and leaving only a shallow 10ft deep crater. Now how can there be enough earth to fall back in on itself if it was blasted out of that hole as you contend?!

I didn't contend that the earth was blasted out. Re-read what I said. I said, in a fraction of a second, the aircraft penetrated the loose soil to a depth of around 30 feet, forming (for a split second) a conical crater which directed the blast back out of the hole.

What you probably don't (or can't) understand is that Flight 93 dove nose-first into a reclaimed strip mining operation. The earth at that site was fill dirt, poured and pushed to fill in the exposed strip mine. The ground was not "solid" — it was, rather, loosely compacted.

When 93 impacted, it penetrated the soil easily and exploded in a fraction of a second. The loose soil would have simply collapsed over the underground wreckage. Which, as it happens, is precisely what the officials found.

— Doc Velocity

Too bad your theory doesnt work.


The fact is that the crater which is round was measured at 20-30 feet in diameter and only 10-15 feet deep. There is no evidence that anything with wings wider than 20 feet hit the ground.

The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is larger than 123 feet. The fuselage is greater than 20-25 feet diameter at the wing root.

The conclusion is that the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757 coming down at a 45 degree angle for there is no evidence to support such an absurd claim. There is a lack of displacement of earth and disturbance in the ground consistent with a craft any where near the dimensions of a Boeing 757 which flight 93 is said to have been.

Of course the FBI is saying otherwise.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Originally posted by Alfie1
Yes UA 93 crashed at Shanksville. Both black boxes were recovered. The flight data recorder placed UA 93 at Shanksville and the cockpit voice recorder provided testimony as to what happened at the end.

Many, many body parts of UA 93 passengers and crew were recovered at Shanksville and identified.

This is a recording of dramatic communications or attempted communications between Cleveland air traffic control, UA 93 and other planes in the area :-

www.youtube.com...

All a fake ?

You will, if you bother to listen to it, note that UA 93 was visually identified by another pilot and that smoke was seen rising from the ground

Who is this man?

www.youtube.com...

► Pilot Witnesses Flight 93's Final Moments

"A pilot of a single-engine Piper might have been the last person to see United Flight 93 before it crashed in Somerset County on Sept. 11.

Local pilot Bill Wright told Team 4 investigator Paul Van Osdol that he thinks that he witnessed a struggle for control of the plane.

Wright was flying over Youngwood, Westmoreland County, and was getting ready to land in Latrobe under order from air traffic control.
Then, an air-traffic controller asked him and his passenger to look out the window.

Wright was flying a Piper Arrow when he spotted a jet crossing behind him -- about three miles away. It was close enough for him and his photographer to see the United Airlines colors.
Wright was flying over Youngwood for about 20 minutes before Flight 93 crashed in Stonycreek Township.
Wright said that he knew that there was a problem when air traffic controllers asked him to give them Flight 93's altitude.
Wright thinks there's only one reason air traffic controllers in Cleveland would have been asking him about the altitude. He said that it was probably because the terrorists had cut off all radio transmissions to air traffic controllers.
"We figured there was a hijacking in progress, and we were seeing it happening, but that's all we knew," Wright said.
Wright got another clue when he and his passenger saw the path that the plane was taking.
"(It) went behind us. (We) lost sight for a while and when it came back (the passenger) said, 'It's turning toward us. Now it's turning away. Now turning back toward us.' So it was rocking its wings.
"It would bank hard left, bank hard right and then back to hard left. We saw it bank three or four times before we got away from it."
Wright said that may have been when several passengers were fighting back against the terrorists.
"The story of the plane being taken over, that fits," Wright said.
Within moments controllers ordered Wright to land immediately.
"That's one of the first things that went through my mind when they told us to get as far away from it as fast as we could -- that either they were expecting it to blow up or they were going to shoot it down, but that's pure speculation," Wright said.

Wright said that he wishes that he could have done something about Flight 93, but there wasn't much more he could do in a single-engine Piper." - thepittsburghchannel.com (09/19/01)

Here is one I hadn't heard.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Doc Velocity

This is called the Jet Cone Effect, when the total output of a detonation is folded back onto itself and is spent in ONE DIRECTION. The effect amplifies the blast output exponentially.

This has nothing to do with a crashing plane. There is nothing in a plane that detonates.

Only explosives detonate. Or are you saying it had explosives onboard?

That whole theory about people blasting to confetti is complete nonsense.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by Doc Velocity

 

This is called the Jet Cone Effect, when the total output of a detonation is folded back onto itself and is spent in ONE DIRECTION. The effect amplifies the blast output exponentially.

This has nothing to do with a crashing plane. There is nothing in a plane that detonates.

Only explosives detonate. Or are you saying it had explosives onboard?

That whole theory about people blasting to confetti is complete nonsense.

Well, actually only detonators detonate. Explosives explode. They're two different words. Nice of you to just handwave away any inconvenient explanations. By the way, you're right. Human beings are well known to be indestructible and fully impervious to explosive force. All those war stories from veterans talking about how their buddies were torn to pieces by artillery - just conintel propoganda shrewdly placed starting at the civil war just so that they could fake the Flight 93 crash scenario 140 years later - now that's what I call planning.

Since it is memorial day weekend, lets add faces and the names.

Pilot: Jason Dahl
www.post-gazette.com...

Pilot: LeRoy Homer Jr.
www.post-gazette.com...

Flight crew: Lorraine Bay
www.post-gazette.com...

Flight crew: Sandra Bradshaw
www.post-gazette.com...

Flight crew: CeeCee Lyles
www.post-gazette.com...

Flight crew: Wanda Green
www.post-gazette.com...

Flight crew: Deborah Anne Jacobs Welsh
www.post-gazette.com...

Passengers

Passenger: Christian Adams
www.post-gazette.com...

Passenger: Todd Beamer
www.post-gazette.com...

Passenger: Alan Beaven
www.post-gazette.com...

Passenger: Mark Bingham
www.post-gazette.com...

Passenger: Deora Bodley
www.post-gazette.com...

Passenger: Marion Britton
www.post-gazette.com...

Passenger: Thomas E. Burnett Jr.
www.post-gazette.com...

Passenger: William Cashman
www.post-gazette.com...

Passenger: Georgine Rose Corrigan
www.post-gazette.com...

Passenger: Patricia Cushing
www.post-gazette.com...

Passenger: Joseph DeLuca
www.post-gazette.com...

Passenger: Patrick "Joe" Driscoll
www.post-gazette.com...

Passenger: Edward Porter Felt
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Jane Folger
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Colleen L. Fraser
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Andrew Garcia
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Jeremy Glick
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Lauren Grandcolas
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Donald F. Greene
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Linda Gronlund
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Richard Guadagno
www.post-gazette.com...

Passenger: Toshiya Kuge
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Hilda Marcin
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Waleska Martinez
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Nicole Miller
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Louis J. Nacke II
www.post-gazette.com...
Passengers: Donald A. Peterson and Jean Hoadley Peterson
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Mark "Mickey" Rothenberg
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Christine Snyder
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: John Talignani
www.post-gazette.com...

Passenger: Honor Elizabeth Wainio
www.post-gazette.com...
Passenger: Kristin Gould White
www.post-gazette.com...

reply to post by hooper

Well, actually only detonators detonate. Explosives explode. They're two different words. Nice of you to just handwave away any inconvenient explanations.

Allow me to educate you:

These nitro groups are from the nitric acid used in the nitration process. Nitroglycerol is the ester of nitric acid and glycerol. Guncotton, Nitroglycerol and all the other higher nitro compounds are in their pure form "high power explosives". That means they are able to detonate. A detonation is by far more powerful than any explosion.

Explosives can explode, as well as detonate. It depends on the grade.

Detonator is a common word for a trigger for the explosive, that makes it detonate.

Not very smart of you, and also not very smart of the people that starred your post.

Human beings are well known to be indestructible and fully impervious to explosive force.

I meant that his whole theory about the plane detonating and blowing people to confetti, is nonsense, wich it clearly is, since a detonation is out of the question.

Please take some more time to think the next time you think you are smart, because you look stupid now.

PS lol at all the ignoramusses that starred your completely incorrect post.




[edit on 30-5-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Doc Velocity

Here's a simple experiment demonstrating the Jet Cone Effect, using a glass cone to direct a relatively small explosion in one direction...

It's a shaped charge. A conical piece of metal or another material, with a high explosive behind it.

The cone isn't used to direct the blast into a particular direction, the explosive is detonated from the back, wich makes the blast travel forward, the cone is then turned inside out and forms a hot jet that cuts through the target.

This has absolutely nothing to do with an airplane crash, zilch, nada.

Just goes to show that people come up up with utter BS to uphold the 911 official story, and others buy it.









[edit on 30-5-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Doc Velocity

Didn't burn, eh? Then how did so many eyewitnesses to the crash report an immense, window-shattering explosion and a huge "mushroom cloud"...? If it didn't explode, how did the shrubbery and trees on the perimeter of the crash catch on fire and were still burning when the first-responders arrived?

Because it was a cruise missile.

reply to post by Point of No Return


??

Because it was a cruise missile.

??? A 'cruise missile' that had a DFDR and CVR onboard?

That had humans onboard?

That had a great deal of Jet-A onboard?

That had 'parts' from a Boeing 757 onboard?

Pretty stunning claim, there.....but doesn't fit any of the facts.

I don't have enough info to make a determination. I have little, to no faith, in the official explanations. I don't believe one must be a Commercial pilot ( I was ) or a structural engineer to conclude something is seriously amiss.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
As you can see from the post above that none of the eyewitness actually say a Boeing 757 crash into the reclaimed, soft dirt stripmine land. Most of them did see a small white jet or fast moving craft that were described as 'Van sized' BEFORE THE CRASH Some of them saw this craft flyover indian lake which completely contradicts the official story.

No, the eyewitnesses (several of them) DID NOT describe a "small white aircraft" flying around the area. They uniformly describe a LARGE JET descending at high speed, performing a belly roll into a nose-first dive into the ground. The aircraft was already losing pieces from the high velocity and erratic maneuvers at low altitude. Several eyewitnesses observed the aircraft diving straight down into the reclaimed strip mine, followed by a tremendous, window-shattering explosion and huge mushroom cloud.

Now, how you can say you have "reviewed" the witness interviews and then come up with a completely different account of their story is puzzling.

Just for grins and giggles, here's another crash site with no extensive crater or debris:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0cabc2f38c16.jpg[/atsimg]

That was ValuJet 592, which crashed into the Florida Everglades. The aircraft completely disappeared in the shallow swamp on impact.

I have no problem drawing a correlation between a shallow swamp and a strip mine full of loose soil. With the velocities and masses involved, the aircraft are likely to disappear beneath the surface of anything less than terra firma.

The fact that Flight 93's crash site does not resemble your expectation of how a crash site should appear is no criteria for mounting a conspiracy theory. The fact remains that it is possible for an aircraft to completely vanish on impact in a relatively soft surface, and it has happened before.

I accept the official story because it answers all questions better than any conspiracy theory.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by weedwhacker

Pretty stunning claim, there.....but doesn't fit any of the facts.

It actually does fit the facts.

It doesn't fit in the fairy tale OS.

The mayor of Shanksville said it himself: "There was no plane".

He later changed his story.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Pretty stunning claim, there.....but doesn't fit any of the facts.

It actually does fit the facts.

It doesn't fit in the fairy tale OS.

The mayor of Shanksville said it himself: "There was no plane".

He later changed his story.

He was taken out of context by a conspiracy peddler. Upon close inspection of the full transcript of the article, the author left out a very important piece of information just after the "no airplane" comment..

"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the airplane's outside shell behind his barn that must've been about 8 by 10 or even 8 by 12 feet."

Yup, got cherry picked by a "fake but accurate" style of reporter. Just what we've come to expect from truthers.



BTW, who mentioned the cruise missile? I'm aware that ATC vectored a Falcon 20, a small corporate jet, to investigate the crash scene. But no reports of missiles. Help me out.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by 767doctor]