Proof the Flight 93 Crash Story Is Wrong

[spooked911]

Here I offer rock-solid proof that the official flight 93 crash story is a lie.

Here is an aerial view of the crater, from the southwest, looking northeast. The plane officially came from the north, and thus would have come from the top of the picture. Notice the wing scars are towards the top, northern side of the crater-- this is important. Also, notice the apparent tail imprint made on the north side of the crater. This mark was described as a tail imprint in the book "Among the Heroes", written about flight 93.




Now, the issue is, what attitude was the plane before impact to make this crater, officially?

According the the official NTSB report,
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_Path_%20Study_UA93.pdf
the plane impacted the ground in an inverted position, at a 40 degree angle nose down. The upside-down or inverted attitude of the plane is also noted by wikipedia and by "Among the Heroes" (Jere Longman, Harper-Collins 2002, p215).

Thus, the government is telling a story where the plane was inverted before it impacted-- that the plane was upside-down or belly up as it hit the earth.

The tail-mark at the north part of the crater in the aerial picture above supports the upside-down story as well. A tail mark made by a plane going southwards can ONLY be produced at the north side of the crater if the plane was going upside-down when it impacts.

So what does it look like when the plane is going upside-down when it impacts? How would the plane FIT in the crater?

I'm going to use this picture, where the camera is looking down one of the wing scars, to the west. North is to the right and south is to the left. Thus, the plane would come from the right.



Here is a diagram, with a plane superimposed onto the crater, using the picture above. (The tail end of the plane is cut off in this diagram because of size.)



Immediately, you should see there is a problem.

Even if the fuselage impacts at the very north part of the crater, THERE IS NO WAY THE WINGS CAN IMPACT THE GROUND TO PRODUCE THE WING SCARS.

The wings simply do not line up in the right place.

If you move the fuselage so that it impacts the ground further to the left (further southwards), the wing alignment problem is even worse.

Further, it is impossible for the plane to flip backwards as it impacts, to have the wings produce the side scars, particularly when the plane (officially) is going 563 mph.

If anything, the wings are going to slide further southwards as the plane breaks up, and make marks further south of the crater.

I submit this wing alignment problem as rock-solid proof that the official flight 93 crash story is a lie.

Article here if links don't work:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/final-nail-in-coffin-irrefutable-proof.html

[Big Pappa]

1. Where are the pics?

[AZCat]

2. They are on his web site.

Beware - there are "chickenwire" caliber diagrams as part of his presentation.

[jschurchin]

3. Whats wrong AZ...............

are his drawings too complex for you to understand?

[AZCat]

4. I don't think the complexity...

of his diagrams is the issue. Rather, it's his oversimplification of complex phenomena (and the unintentionally hilarious results) that continues to amuse me.






On Edit: added some tags for clarity (I hope).

[jschurchin]

5. Congatulations

You have joined the list.

[AZCat]

6. Great!

What list that is, I have no idea. You seem to have left that piece of information out of your post.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. Cool, what list is this?

You have the floor.

[MervinFerd]

19. I wanna be on the list, too. Pleeeeeeaaase.

[spooked911]

8. No comments on the evidence?

That is pretty sad.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Ok, comments on the evidence.

2 (plane in sky) plus 2 (plane fragments on ground) equals 4 (Flight 93 crashed right there).

[spooked911]

12. WOW, HOW CONVINCING

you're amazing

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Wait, there's more!

1 (passengers boarding Flight 93) plus 1 (passenger phone calls from Flight 93 about being hijacked) plus 1 (cockpit voice recorder of Flight 93 being hijacked) plus 1 (passenger DNA identified from remains recovered at Shanksville)...

ALSO EQUALS 4 (FLIGHT 93 CRASHED RIGHT THERE)!

I love talking about the evidence.

[spooked911]

16. I know you love talking about the fake evidence

how about doing a little critical thinking, now?

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Exactly which of the evidences I mention was faked, spooked?

The DNA samples that was matched to samples provided by the family members, perhaps?

[spooked911]

29. depends how you define fake, I guess

I meant the planted evidence that was put out to support the official story

[Bolo Boffin]

32. So the DNA matching evidence was planted by officials to support the official story?

Don't be coy, spooked. State your convictions clearly. You are saying that the human remains discovered at the scene were placed there deliberately by officials in order to support the idea that Flight 93 crashed there, yes?

Come on, say it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

36. If every thing is a lie

then how do you know this to be true?

[Twist_U_Up]

31. wait wait wait.................

all of your planes belong to us !!!!!

[William Seger]

10. Proof that Spooky is wrong -- again

First, I'll take one of the well-known ariel photos of the crater and rotate it to approximately match the orientation of a closer photo, below. In particular, note the egg-shaped central crater where the fuselage hit (and the mark of the tail fin extending from it):



Now, here is an ariel photo with more detail:



(One interesting point is to note the size of the man compared to what Spooky claims is a 15 x 20 foot crater.) Comparing the two photos, we can see that the lighting on the near side of the crater is deceptive: The edge of the crater that was made by the top of the fuselage actually extends into the lighter dirt directly in front of the man, as I've indicated with the yellow line in the lower-right inset.

The fact that this is definitely part of the fuselage crater can be proved with this photo (although the right edge of the crater is not directly shown but I've indicated an approximate location):



From the diagram on this page, http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101 , we can see that the top of a 757 fuselage is only about 10 feet above the center of the wings (and the total cabin diameter is about 12 feet.) These two photos above show that the edge of the fuselage crater is at least 10 feet from the centerline of the wing craters.

So, putting it all together, it's clear that Flight 93 was not totally inverted when it his the ground -- the wings were banked to the left -- so the direction that it was traveling was not perpendicular to the craters left by the wings. The approach direction was approximately as I've shown in the second photo above, with the top of the fuselage hitting the ground near the white arrow. As can be seen in the two photos above, that edge of the crater is about where it would be expected to be, relative to the wing craters.

To recap: Spooky's estimate of the total size of the crater and the distance between the engine craters is way off, as I proved here with two different reasonable estimates of the size: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x137373#139734

And, Spooky's claim that the crater couldn't have been formed by an inverted 757 is debunked by the photos above.

And, we know from the crash of Northwest flight 710 under similar circumstances that a high-speed plane crashing into soft dirt can be buried in the crater.

There is no anomaly in Flight 93 crater.

[spooked911]

11. I honestly do not follow your argument here--

perhaps you could draw a diagram showing the plane coming in the way you say it came in?

But as far as I can tell, having the plane banked doesn't change anything.

Moreover, my proof has nothing to do with the crater SIZE, but rather where the wing marks are in relation to the central crater.

Though the size argument is still good, it's not "proof".

[William Seger]

15. I did draw a diagram

The white arrow in the center photo shows the direction of approach. The banked wings, as I said, meant that the direction of approach was not perpendicular to the wing craters (as indicated by the fact that the long axis of the egg-shaped crater in the top photo is not perpendicular to the wings), so the crater from the fuselage impact is offset to one side, as indicated by the yellow line in the center photo. The red arrows in the lower photo show approximately how the plane entered the crater (as indicated by the slope of the right edge) and the approximate position of the top of the fuselage, which on a 757 is about 10 feet above the centerline of the wings.

So, which part do you not understand?

[spooked911]

17. you've gotta be either kidding or just muddying the waters,

because your "counter-argument" makes no sense.

The fuselage cannot disappear into the edge of the crater.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for the fuselage to go into the center crater and make wing prints at the top of the crater, if the plane is inverted.

If this is the best you got, then I've won, no question.

[MervinFerd]

20. It wasn't a counter argument. It was a statement of clear fact.

You are pulling another joke on us, aren't you?

Ha, ha, ha.

[spooked911]

30. No wonder you support the official 9/11 fairy tale

if you think what he put out was FACT.

Jeeza peeza.

[William Seger]

21. No, Spooky, I'm trying to help you find the truth

[spooked911]

28. you're wrong for several reasons

1) the perspective for the plane is not the same as in the picture-- that particular crater picture is misleading because of the perspective angle.
2) importantly, the plane's wings aren't tilted the right way-- this makes a very big difference in how you line them up
3) you have the fuselage hitting at an unnatural spot-- much too close to the top edge


Reasonably good photoshop job, though.

And good effort at deception, overall.

But again, if this is the best you got, I win.

[William Seger]

34. There are none so blind ...

> 1) the perspective for the plane is not the same as in the picture-- that particular crater picture is misleading because of the perspective angle.

No, that photo -- combinded with the top one showing the full egg-shaped crater -- is a very good one to show exactly what I'm talking about: the crater made by the top of the fuselage. The composite picture was only intended to help you see how the plane went into crater, since you seemed to be having some difficulty in understanding my first post. Surely, someone with an imagination as vivid as yours can mentally adjust the perspective a few degrees? But the perspective is irrelevant to the size issue, which is the basis of your claim that the inverted plane couldn't have gone into the crater. That composite is good enough to prove you wrong.

> 2) importantly, the plane's wings aren't tilted the right way-- this makes a very big difference in how you line them up

I don't know how you can claim that when you didn't even understand how the plane being banked would affect the angle of the wing crater relative to the approach direction of the plane, but the angle of the wings is pretty close to being right. Again, I simply used one of the plane photos you had already posted; I didn't look for a photo with a wing rotation that would perfectly align with the wing crater in the photo because it's completely irrelevant to the issue. The issue is your claim that the fuselage couldn't possibly have been below the wings, and you're claiming that is irrefutable evidence that the crater was faked. The main problem is you're incorrectly assuming that the fuselage must have hit the center of the egg-shaped crater, and that assumption is not justified given that the plane hit the ground at an angle. Which brings us to this:

> 3) you have the fuselage hitting at an unnatural spot-- much too close to the top edge

In what way is it "unnatural" or "too close"? What clearly happened is that the fuselage scooped out a crater in the direction it was travelling, because of the angle that it hit the ground, and pushed up dirt on the opposite side. It's possible to show the same thing with this photo:



> And good effort at deception, overall.

Are you deliberately trying to tempt me into breaking the the forum rules?

> But again, if this is the best you got, I win.

Yeah, all I've got is proof that your analysis is -- again -- completely wrong. You win as long as you don't admit it.

[spooked911]

39. your image is so incredibly misleading-- I can't believe you actually believe that

this is the way it was. Obviously you simply don't want to face facts.

I KNOW, you think the same about me.

But you are just so wrong.

[spooked911]

42. a simple request--

draw a diagram of the plane coming in inverted at a 40 degree angle using this picture:


and show how the wings line up

Thanks.

[spooked911]

53. still waiting...

still waiting...

[William Seger]

54. This is getting ridiculous

That photo doesn't show any of the right side of the crater made by the top fuselage -- the part you're so comically trying to ignore -- and the angle makes it hard to tell precisely where the fuselage crater really is. You could hardly pick a worse photo to try to figure out how the plane hit. Was that the intent when you chose it for your diagram, or do you just not understand why you won't figure out anything useful from that photo? The photos I've shown are quite sufficient for most people to understand what happened. Look at the two ariel photos again; it's quite clear where the inverted fuselage hit. Look at the side view again; it's quite clear that the area on the right really is part of the crater, and although you can't see the extreme right edge, you can get a good guess by comparing it to the ariels. If you want to do the same thing with your photo, just trace the line where you think the wing hit the crater and try to guess where it would intersect the axis of the fuselage crater (which you won't really be able to do accurately because the bad angle makes it hard to tell where the fuselage crater really is). From there, draw a line at the angle you think the plane hit. The top of the fuselage would then be a parallel line 10 feet to the right. So, what's your problem? You definitely can't use that photo to refute what I'm saying; it doesn't show the part of the crater you need to see.

[spooked911]

61. My photo is fine and shows the edge of the crater-- and in fact I line up the top of the

plane along that sloped crater edge.

Now-- what I want to know is, what is an "ariel photo" and what are "ariels"?

[William Seger]

68. No, you photo only shows the wing and engine crater

... which is obvious if you look at the better photos.

[spooked911]

74. simply not true-- that northern edge is only a shallow depression

the north edge of the crater you are obsessed with is only a shallow depression where the plane fuselage could never have gone into

[William Seger]

47. Oh, yes, I believe it

... and I've shown you the reasons I believe it. You said:

> IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for the fuselage to go into the center crater and make wing prints at the top of the crater, if the plane is inverted.

I have falsified your claim. There is nothing "misleading" about my proof that the inverted plane indeed could have made that crater, and you have presented absolutely no facts to refute it, yet you now say I "simply don't want to face facts." What facts am I avoiding, please? If you wish to continue believing that the plane didn't enter the crater as I've shown it, knock yourself out; but you can no longer support your belief with that "impossible" claim. You are now stuck with saying I'm "just so wrong" because you just don't believe it.

[spooked911]

51. your last diagram is simply wrong for several reasons--

the plane is too small*, it comes in at an unrealistic point on the rim of the crater** and there is no attempt to show where the wings go if the plane is at a 40 degree angle*** (as opposed to a 90 degree angle as you seem to show).

If you cannot see these problems, there really is no point in going on with you.


*though at least you're getting closer to the actual size of the plane and the crater

**it is unrealistic to assume that there would be no dirt would be displaced from where the top of the plane impacts and that the northern rim of the crater would be formed exactly where the plane impacts. Surely the dirt would be pushed out of the way a couple of feet by this large plane impacting the ground and burrowing into the ground.

***this makes a HUGE difference

[William Seger]

55. No, you are wrong again

> the plane is too small*,

No, it isn't; it's actually just a tad large (intentionally, because I suspected you'd say that). Your measurements are (again) just wrong.

> it comes in at an unrealistic point on the rim of the crater**

No, your attempt to show the fuselage hitting the center of that central crater is "unrealistic" because you don't account for the plane's momentum, hitting at an angle instead of straight down. You don't understand the physics of the impact so you're substituting what you "think" it "should" look like. Your imaginary physics ain't evidence. You still have yet to figure out the significance of the fact that this was soft dirt, and soft very deeply down.

> and there is no attempt to show where the wings go if the plane is at a 40 degree angle*** (as opposed to a 90 degree angle as you seem to show).

That doesn't make enough sense to comment on, so I'll just show this again to see if you figure out "where the wings go."



Your bunkum has been debunked, Spooky; you've got nothing left but denial.

[spooked911]

60. Hint-- a real plane's wings aren't thin little yellow lines--

plus the wings shouldn't come straight down like that. The wings would only hit that area if the plane were coming in at a 90 degree angle-- and if the plane hit at that unrealistic edge of the crater.



Is this really so hard to see?

[William Seger]

69. So, make 'em thicker

I would say you are grasping at straws, but that would be giving your argument too much credit. What that schematic shows -- and all it's intended to show -- is that, since the central crater is about 35 feet wide, the centerline of the wings definitely leaves plenty of room in the central crater for the top of the fuselage, which on a 757 is only about 10 feet above the centerline of the wings. The axis of the fuselage crater would not be perpendicular to the wing craters, true, but that's irrelevant since the symmetry in that schematic is just a result of the drawing tool I used, so just imagine it being slightly asymmetric and it still fits. Look at the other photo, taken from the other side: The crater is symmetric around an axis that indicates the direction of travel, and there's plenty of room for the fuselage to enter on the near side. And again, just because you can't understand how the plane could have entered that soft dirt on one side of the crater while pushing up dirt only on the opposite side, that doesn't make it "unrealistic." What's unrealistic is your suggestion that the plane would have pushed up dirt equally forward and backward, when we know it hit at about a 40-degree angle.

ALL the evidence indicates Flight 93 crashed in that crater, Spooky. You have tried to prove that's impossible and you have failed.

[vincent_vega_lives]

37. Yep you "win"

now time for your meds.

[spooked911]

45. When all else fails

question my sanity.

Very nice.

[vincent_vega_lives]

63. Claims of "rock solid-proof"

Not from actually examining the wreckage, the crater and the flight data recorder, but from a few pictures on the internet.

Yep, the meds are waiting.

[spooked911]

44. here is the easy explanation for why your diagram is wrong--

the port wing (the rear or far-side wing) does NOT hit the wing mark on the far side. It is not even close.

The "port wing" crater is at the upper right corner of this picture:


and your port wing comes down in the middle-left of the picture.


That is on top of the fact that the forward (starboard) wing is not lined up with the wing scar in your image.

[spooked911]

52. your plane is also at the wrong angle

should be 40 degrees

you have about 45 degrees

[William Seger]

56. Look at the edge of the crater

I've made the angle parallel to the angle of the crater wall on the right side. Now look closely at the edge of that fuselage crater and you will see that it looks to be sheared cleanly, not pushed up like the opposite side. So, that wall shows the precise angle of entry into the ground. However, in that photo the line is at about 45 degrees, but since the approach direction was not parallel to the image plane of the photo, the actual impact angle to the ground would be less than 45 degrees. (I thought you knew all about perspective.) Moreover, the 40 degrees comes from the last recorded reading on the FDR, which would be slightly before actual impact. If the plane was still rotating (which is very likely, given that witnesses say it turned toward the ground just before impact), then the impact angle would be more than 40 degrees.

(ETA: If you look at the plotted angle from the FDR, the plane was still rotating when the last reading was recorded, which could have been one or two seconds before impact.)

[spooked911]

62. In fact my picture shows that north edge of the crater is sloped,

such that the "plane" can't have gone INTO the ground there. The nose HAD to have gone further in the crater to the south -- which invalidates your diagram.

I still wonder if you are being deliberately dense about this or are just deluded.

(Yeah, I know, I know, you think the same thing).

[William Seger]

70. Jeez...

You apparently can't even tell what you're looking at in that photo (which is only the wing and engine craters), but you're claiming it's irrefutable evidence that a 757 didn't hit there. You apparently can't (or won't) understand the photos I'm trying to show you, which clearly show where you went wrong. Then you say I'm "being deliberately dense about this or are just deluded."

This is a waste of time, and you're wasting your time trying to analyze photos.

[spooked911]

75. OK, now we are getting somewhere-- I actually agree with your photo analysis here

NOW--

That northern rim you are obsessed with CANNOT HAVE BEEN WHERE THE PLANE'S NOSE WENT INTO-- IT IS TOO SHALLOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The little lip on the north is maybe 1 foot deep.

Are you really saying the nose of a 150 foot long plane hit there?

Or are you simply wasting every one's time????????

By the way, your original crater measurement is still WAY off.

[spooked911]

76. Looking at your diagram again-- what a JOKE

I LOVE the part where you say the 12 foot wide by 150 foot long fuselage went into a crater 1 foot deep.

YOU'RE A RIOT!!!!!!

[spooked911]

77. Just to clarify, Mr. Seger--

are you saying the bulk of the fuselage hit where that one foot depression is?

And then what? Bounced off? Got buried under there?

[spooked911]

78. Is that your final answer, Mr. Seger?

are you maintaining the fuselage went into the shallow depression on the north side?

[spooked911]

79. Any one else want to take up Mr. Seger's argument?

after all, if I'm right, isn't it rather significant?

[LARED]

80. Mr. Seger is quite capable of defending himself

The fact he has not responded, in no way validates whatever it is you think you are "proving"

[spooked911]

81. I have PROVEN the official flight 93 story is very wrong

What about that don't you understand?

Do YOU think the nose of a Boeing 757 can smash into the ground and only make a 1 foot deep depression, as Mr. Seger seems to be arguing?

[LARED]

82. What I fail to understand is how you have determined you have

proven anything. I'm not going to argue about it. You can believe anything you want.

[spooked911]

84. you are being intellectually dishonest

though I guess all you care about is propping up the official story

[William Seger]

83. A "shallow depression" is all that's left of your argument

No, Hawkeye, that's not a "shallow depression" in this photo:


It's a hole in the ground, with the north wall being at the same angle that the plane hit, and it goes in as deeply as you can see in that photo. Looking at the various aerial photos, it certainly appears to keep about that same angle until it gets to the V-shaped bottom of the central crater.

Look at the length of the mark left by the tail. It wouldn't extend that far from that edge of the crater unless that's where the top of the fuselage entered the ground.

But no, the fuselage is not "in" that part of the crater. That area was just gouged out by the top of the fuselage, which continued in the direction it was traveling and ended up under the dirt that's piled up on the opposite side of the crater. Look at this one again:



As I said before, this has become a pointless waste of time. You've got nothing left but baseless, unsupported assertions and denial.

[spooked911]

85. either ---

you don't understand my argument,
you don't understand your argument, or
you are not being intellectually honest.

As I said, that image you made with the plane is severely flawed.

Look at where the port (rearward) wing goes.

[William Seger]

86. "Understand" your argument?

Last time for answering to this same nonsense: The port wing goes in the crater made by the port wing:



The starboard wing goes in the crater made by the starboard wing, and the fuselage goes in the crater made by the fuselage. It's not my problem that you apparently can't figure out where those things are in that photo from the side. The overall problem here seems to be that you aren't capable of looking at several different pictures of the crater from different angles and figuring out what it looked like in three dimensions, or in figuring out what the plane would look like going into that crater in three dimensions, or understanding why that soft dirt would behave very differently than hard rock. That's a shame, but you are claiming that this fuzzy thinking is "rock-solid proof that the official flight 93 crash story is a lie."

Another thing that you and others in the totally-wacked-out CT camp don't understand (or don't care about) is that in doing so, you are dragging hundreds or thousands more innocent people into your idiotic interpretation of what happened and accusing them of being accessories to a mass murder. And then, when your "evidence" turns out to be a preposterous supposition based only on your own fuzzy thinking and ignorance, you just include anyone who tells you so into the conspiracy. If this were a laughing matter, you'd be a joke. But it isn't.

[spooked911]

87. The irony is that I could say the same exact thing about what you are doing

I think I can understand perspective a little better than you, since at least I didn't try to measure the width of the crater by drawing a line from foreground to center-ground and then using a constant unit of measurement.


I can understand that in the diagram with thin yellow lines representing the plane, that the only way your model makes sense is if the fuselage only made a 1 foot depression when it hit, plus that the plane came down at a 90 degree angle.


I at least can understand that the nose of a Boeing 757 can't impact the ground at 600 mph and only make a 1 foot depression.

I can understand that in your diagram showing the plane from the side, with the plane coming in from above, the port wing DOES NOT GO INTO THE CRATER IF YOU FOLLOW THE TRAJECTORY.

You have been sooooooooooo wrong throughout this whole "debate", it is not even funny.

It is in fact scary to see someone who so willfully cannot see how wrong they are.



You can call me crazy all you like, but you are the one who can't seem to understand my argument. You simply have not mounted a coherent rebuttal to my diagram.

Maybe you are not being intentionally intellectually dishonest, so I have to assume you just are not capable of understanding the concepts here and you are being blinded by some warped sense of patriotism.

[William Seger]

89. Total bullshit

First, it's most certainly not a one-foot depression. You can't tell how deep it is from that one photo from the side, but you can tell that you can't see the bottom in that photo, so it's certainly deeper than a few feet. Looking at the aerial photos, there doesn't seem to be any reason whatsoever for inferring that it doesn't keep going at that same angle all the way down to the bottom of the crater. You pulled "one foot deep" straight out of your ass, without a shred of substantiation.

Second, I have no idea where you think the port wing crater is, but since the aerial photo shows that it's precisely where it "should be," whatever point you're trying to make must be simply due to your own misconceptions about where the wing crater is. You have yet to clarify specifically what misconception you have -- you just keep claiming that it's "wrong" somehow -- so there's nothing more to be said about that.

Third, on your own diagram, you completely ignored a large part of the crater to the north -- simply because it's not clearly shown in that photo! -- and put the top of the fuselage at the north edge of the wing crater, seen at an angle! I'm not the least bit impressed that you "think" you can understand perspective a "little better" than I can; that's bullshit and it's proof positive that you simply don't understand what your are looking at in the photos, because you apparently can't relate all the photos to each other and come up with a coherent and accurate understanding of what the crater looked like.

Fourth, your perception that the fuselage must have hit the center of the central crater, pushing dirt up equally forward and backward regardless of the momentum of plane hitting at a 40-degree angle, is based on absolutely nothing but your own imaginary physics.

Fifth, the hypothesis that the top of the fuselage went into the ground right at that northern edge is corroborated by the mark left by the tail. That mark wouldn't extend so far from the crater if the fuselage hit where you're showing it.

Sixth, the measurement I made was from the southern edge of one engine crater to the northern edge of the fuselage crater, simply because that was the widest part straight across that photo, which was taken at an angle. At that time, the discussion was simply about the total size of the crater, and specifically comparing its size to the 30x40-foot crater made by Flight 710, so there was nothing incorrect or misleading about my measurement. It was only later that you tried to shift the discussion to the size of the central fuselage crater exclusively, and you did so for no apparent reason other than to come up with something closer to your ridiculous 15x20 claim. You were still wrong, since the central crater is something greater than 30 in diameter, but you were way wrong in that you were trying to redirect the discussion away from the original point: the total size of the crater. My measurement was indeed far more accurate for that purpose. If you approximate the "main" part of the crater -- i.e. the fuselage plus the engines, but exclude the wings beyond the engines -- it would very roughly be an oval more than 30 feet wide and about 50 feet long. My 40- to 45-foot measurement (which would be a diagonal of that oval), taken as an approximation of an equivalent round crater, does indeed give a far, far more accurate estimate of the total size of the crater than your 21-foot mis-measurement of just the central crater.

If I was "sooooooooooo wrong throughout this whole debate" you should be able to come up with something resembling a cogent, coherent, and logically valid rebuttal to the above points. How do you explain the fact that you haven't?

[spooked911]

91. you have failed to grasp my basic point

about where the wings should go when the plane is inverted.

The nose of the fuselage CAN'T go far enough north of the crater to make the wings go into those marks.

PERIOD.

You can see the wing marks are essentially flush with the north side of the crater, which mkaes NO SENSE for an inverted plane.

PERIOD.

[spooked911]

92. here's a hint for you

the wings actually hit the crater marks if the plane is right side up impacting at 40 degrees.

Think about it.

[William Seger]

100. Here's a hint for you

You have yet to be right about a single claim that you've made about this crater.

Think about it.

[spooked911]

114. There's nothing to think about there-- you're wrong

I wouldn't be so confident if I were you

[William Seger]

103. ... and another hint

Think about it.

[spooked911]

111. are you serious????

do you really think the plane could have gone in like that???????????

:o

I'm stunned.

[spooked911]

115. You do know that officially the plane went in inverted at a 40 degree angle

right?

It didn't go in at a 90 degree angle.

Now look at your picture, and add in some engines on the wings (they would be on the top side of the wings in this picture, since the plane is going upside down)

Where do the engines go?

Where does the top of the fuselage go?

Why is the tail tipped to one side?

[William Seger]

117. You are hopeless

I've repeatedly shown you these photos, showing both the angle of the plane and where the top of the fuselage hit:



And now you're telling me you can't look at this photo and figure out where the engines hit?



Sorry, but I'm not going to waste any more time doing diagrams for you -- not for something that idiotic, anyway.

Why is the tail tipped? The fuselage was being crushed as it entered the ground, so it appears that the tail section twisted slightly before it hit the ground. Is that the last piece of your "rock-solid proof" that needs to be debunked?

[spooked911]

121. let me ask one last thing

in this diagram, can you show the plane coming in at 40 degrees (not 90) and also mark where the engines go?

[spooked911]

122. actually, forget it-- I can see your modus operandi now:

you will make a completely implausible diagram and then insist that I am the crazy one for saying something is wrong with it.

[William Seger]

123. This doesn't need to be that hard

But somehow, I doubt that even drawing you a picture will help...

[Bolo Boffin]

124. Holy crap.

What a sobering picture.

[spooked911]

125. You still are saying the plane came in at a 90 degree angle

and that the upper half of the fuselage barely made a hole in the ground.

Not to mention the ridiculous size of the plane compared to the crater.

You simply are not getting it.

God, I cannot believe you are serious.

[William Seger]

126. WHAT "90-degree angle" are you talking about ?!

I've shown you a picture from the side, with the plane entering the crater at what would be about a 40-degree angle (relative to the direction the plane was moving, not relative to the photo's image plane). Here, I've shown you approximately what the plane would look like entering at about a 40-degree angle (which is less than the angle that the camera is looking at the crater in this photo, so the bottom of the plane would be seen), and it's completely consistent with that picture from the side. How could this picture be showing the plane entering the crater at 90 degrees when this photo is looking at the crater from perhaps 50 degrees? That's as backwards as your claim in the previous thread that the people in the photo must be 2 feet tall if the crater was 40 feet across. Once again, it seems that part of the problem you're having here is in putting all this together in three dimensions, and another problem is in using simple logic.

> and that the upper half of the fuselage barely made a hole in the ground.

I've demonstrated -- repeatedly -- that the north edge of the crater precisely fits the size and position of the fuselage relative to the wings. Your claim that that's just a "shallow depression" is refuted by the photos from the other side. Your belief that the fuselage couldn't enter the ground like that without creating more of a crater opposite the direction of travel is based on nothing but imaginary physics, and doesn't take into account that this was soft dirt.

> Not to mention the ridiculous size of the plane compared to the crater.

I've already shown you, several different ways, how big that crater was, and there is nothing "ridiculous" about the size I'm showing for the plane. The plane fits the crater precisely.

> You simply are not getting it.

Just what is it that I'm not "getting?" So far, everything you've claimed about this crater has been shown to be wrong, and everything you've claimed I'm wrong about has been easily refuted, and the only response you've had is to just repeat the same claims -- no facts, no logic. Apparently, the one and only thing you've got left is that you just don't believe it, but I guess that's to be expected if you just don't understand it.

> God, I cannot believe you are serious.

Get your head out of your ass, Spooky: ALL the evidence says Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. If you want to continue making a fool of yourself over this, I'll be glad to oblige.

[spooked911]

127. Reply

1) it's a nice photoshop job, but the angle of the plane is not 40 degrees, perhaps it is 60 degrees-- and that 20 degrees makes a big difference

2) even at the angle of the plane that you have, you can see the wings and engines don't line up with the marks, and remember, momentum would carry things forward, not backwards if you think there was twisting during the crash

3) there simply is no significant crater where you say the nose of the fuselage went, and that defies physics. If you are saying the nose slid forward upon impact, then you have to move the wings forward as well-- and then they miss the mark even more badly. This is BASIC stuff, I don't know why you can't see this.

4) as far as the size of the crater, this is not a question of "fit" but more like how much earth needs to be displaced to cause the disintegration of a 150 foot long 200 ton plane going 560 mph (officially). A "precise" fit is ridiculous in this context.

5) my user name is not "spooky", and I would prefer you to not use that term.

[William Seger]

130. Spooky, PLEASE just stop this nonsense

I'm going to answer ONE more time, and then you can take this stupid bullshit back to your blog. I'm NOT going to keep saying the same damned things over and over and over until you get it. Your factless denials of the obvious based on absolutely nothing except your inability to grasp the obvious are not doing anyone any good.

> 1) it's a nice photoshop job, but the angle of the plane is not 40 degrees, perhaps it is 60 degrees-- and that 20 degrees makes a big difference

NO, you are WRONG. If you think the plane is shown at 60 degrees, then you must think the photo is looking down on the crater at more than 70 degrees or so. Either that or you've got your "basic logic" engine stuck in reverse again. Look at the man on the ground: it's clear that the angle of the camera is nowhere near 70 degrees. If I had to guess I'd put it at about 50 degrees, and I'm showing the plane at LESS THAN that angle. Get it? But I actually judged the angle of the plane relative to the photo by estimating the angle of that north wall of the fuselage crater, which despite your continued but totally baseless assertion, is fairly straight and goes all the way to the bottom of the crater, as proved by the two photos I already showed you (and will show you one more time below) of that same wall looking from the other side of the crater.

And ANYWAY, the only purpose of this picture was to give you some idea of what the plane would look like in that photo, since you seemed to be completely befuddled about what I was saying and kept talking about "90 degrees." But judging the precise angle of entry from THAT photo is UNNECESSARY since I've already shown you both a diagram and a photo of what the plane would like if seen from the SIDE, coming in at about a 40 degree angle:


> 2) even at the angle of the plane that you have, you can see the wings and engines don't line up with the marks, and remember, momentum would carry things forward, not backwards if you think there was twisting during the crash

NO, you are WRONG. I have attempted to show the plane at about the position where the left wing would have hit the ground (i.e. with the front fuselage already in the ground) -- based on the FACT that we now know that the total width of the wing marks is indeed about the wingspan of a 757 -- and both wings and both engines line up nearly perfectly with the crater. One thing that we see with the wing and engine craters is that, unlike the fuselage crater, dirt WAS thrown out behind the point of impact. That would be because the wing fuel tanks, unlike the fuselage, literally exploded on impact and exerted force in all directions, whereas the fuselage apparently went straight into the soft dirt and only threw up a low "lip" on that north wall. The fuselage mostly pushed up dirt on the opposite side, because of its forward momentum. You still don't understand why that would happen, but we'll revisit that in a minute.

> 3) there simply is no significant crater where you say the nose of the fuselage went, and that defies physics. If you are saying the nose slid forward upon impact, then you have to move the wings forward as well-- and then they miss the mark even more badly. This is BASIC stuff, I don't know why you can't see this.

NO, I don't see it because you are WRONG. You ignored this picture, so I'll post it again.



LOOK at those photos, Spooky, and tell me where those two features are that I pointed to in the photos from the other side. That north wall is NOT a "shallow depression"; it's a wall that goes straight down to the bottom of the crater, at just about the angle that the plane hit. The plane did NOT "slide forward upon impact"; it went straight into that soft dirt. You are simply confused by the angle of the crater wall and the lighting in that one aerial photo. That might be understandable since it's usually hard to figure out three dimensions from a two-dimensional photo, but if you can't look at those two photos from the other side and figure out what's happening, there is simply no excuse for you to be posting claims of "rock-solid proof" of anything and calling people liars based on your analytical "skills." You don't have any.

And then, once again you pretend to know something about physics. This was not hard clay or rock or concrete; it was SOFT DIRT. Go do some reading about WHY a hard substance craters from an impact and then you might understand why a soft substance doesn't. Fire a bullet at a concrete wall and you get a crater bigger than the bullet. Fire the same bullet into styrofoam and you get a hole slightly smaller than the bullet. Until you can explain to me WHY that happens, don't try to bullshit people with your "understanding" of physics.

> 4) as far as the size of the crater, this is not a question of "fit" but more like how much earth needs to be displaced to cause the disintegration of a 150 foot long 200 ton plane going 560 mph (officially). A "precise" fit is ridiculous in this context.

NO, you are WRONG. The crater IS bigger than the plane; you just don't understand why it's shaped the way it is. Sorry, but your lack of understanding is only "rock-solid proof" of your lack of understanding, and nothing more.

> 5) my user name is not "spooky", and I would prefer you to not use that term.

And I'd bet there are quite a few people who saw Flight 93 crash and hundreds of people involved with cleaning up that mess who would "prefer" that you didn't call them liars and accessories to mass murder. Your flaming bunny cage was the biggest embarrassment DU has ever seen, and there are still dozens of links to that post around the web with snide remarks about it being representative of the stupidity of DUers. You've started two threads now about your "undeniable, rock-solid proof" that the Shanksville crash was faked and both times your "proof" has turned out to be bullshit. And now you're offended that I call you Spooky instead of Spooked911? Jeez. Well, I'll make a deal with you: Apologize to the board for all this stupid shit, and I'll stop calling you Spooky.

[spooked911]

131. I suspect your grudge against me and 9/11 skeptics in general

is coloring any objectivity you might have about this evidence.

Look, you have been wrong, over and over and over-- and I can feel the antagonism coming from you, meaning that you are not listening to me.

I would happily rebut every image you have presented if I had the time to do so.

I think the initial diagram I presented was very clear, and something you have never tried to directly show was wrong.

[spooked911]

132. I can use photoshop too-- and I can show how wrong you are

I don't think you have the plane at the right angle, but I will ignore that for now, because even at this angle, your model is clearly wrong.

A plane hitting soft earth and blowing up is going to leave more of a mark in the earth than the mark left by a plane hitting a concrete wall.

The nose of a Boeing 757, followed by the rest of the plane, is not going to hit soft earth, blow up, and only leave a one to two foot depression.

PERIOD.

But this is what you maintain.

If you think the nose angled further south into the crater as it impacted, you have to say the wings and engines hit further south as well.

PERIOD.

In my diagram, I actually have the fuselage coming in at an appropriate angle for that little northerly depression:





The wing and engine craters don't line up.

PERIOD.

[William Seger]

134. .... and you are wrong

PERIOD.

The wings align perfectly with the shallow marks made by the ends of each wing, which indicate the wing position more clearly and unambiguously than the crater. That's because, as I just said in my previous post, looking at both the aerial and the ground views of the wing craters, it's clear that the wing fuel tanks literally exploded, which enlarged those two sections of the crater by exerting force in all directions. The wing tips and the fuselage, however, apparently did not explode; they went straight into the soft dirt, and the fuselage pushed up a lot of dirt in the direction it was moving.

And one final time, the pictures from the opposite side prove that that isn't a "shallow depression" where the fuselage hit. Since you apparently couldn't locate those two rock or debris features I called your attention to, twice, I'll do it for you:



NOW see if you can compare them to the aerial photo and see if you can figure out what the crater looks like in three dimensions. Those features are on a sloping wall made by the top of the fuselage, which is most definitely not in a "shallow depression"; it goes all the way to the bottom of the crater. You are simple confused (and apparently incapable of being unconfused) by the viewing angle and the lighting of that one aerial photo. But that doesn't become a "negligible" part of the crater just because YOU can't seem to see it.

Since those two features are approximately on the centerline of the plane's entry, I can use them to make a yellow line in this graphic to show where the top-center of the fuselage went straight into the crater, not into a "shallow depression":



It simply does not matter that you don't "get it"; you are wrong. You have been wrong about every single claim you've made about this crater. You've had more than enough opportunity to prove me wrong in anything I've said, and you have failed to do anything but make the same fallacious, debunked arguments over and over. ALL of the available physical evidence is perfectly consistent with the story told by the eyewitnesses: UA 93 made that crater.

You really need to get a new hobby.

[spooked911]

135. delete

[spooked911]

136. Your claim is absurd-- there is NO evidence for a deep crater there-- NONE

In the photo I post, are you claiming the man is walking straight into a 6 foot deep crater?

There is a depression there, but it is absurd to say that is where the brunt of the force occurred from a huge plane impacting at 560 mph and then disintegrating/burrowing into the ground.

The aerial photo is too low of a resolution for your claim-- it is simply too difficult to make out depth in that photo. Other photos do not show any significant crater there.

I will grant you that there is a "ramp" on the crater on the northeast side that goes down at a shallow angle into the center of the crater.

But the joke is still on you because:

1) that "ramp" is simply too shallow to accomodate a 757 fuselage the way you have drawn it

2) you draw much of the fuselage hitting well outside that ramp

3) the starboard wing and engine still hit past the marks in your diagram-- and any explosion is going to push things forward due to momentum. It is absurd to say the wing exploded and magically moved the wing backwards to gouge the earth at the same time leaving the earth in front untouched. You call me out of touch with reality?



You've lost.

You did the best you could shilling for the official story, but face facts, you're wrong-- and I suspect deep down you know it.

A final note. I never said nothing crashed to make that crater. It's quite possible some other kind of aircraft crashed there. It's also possible the crater was a massive hoax.

But my proof rests with the idea that the official story of a Boeing 757 hitting inverted at a 40 degree angle is wrong.

[William Seger]

137. Game over

> Your claim is absurd-- there is NO evidence for a deep crater there-- NONE.

Of course there is; you simply can't (or won't) see it. Hopefully, this post will clear up your confusion about that.

> In the photo I post, are you claiming the man is walking straight into a 6 foot deep crater?

I'm claiming no such thing: First, it's deeper than that, and second, there's no reason to assume the man didn't stop before walking into it.

> The aerial photo is too low of a resolution for your claim-- it is simply too difficult to make out depth in that photo. Other photos do not show any significant crater there.

The original photo is very high resolution, which has nothing whatsover with making out the depth. For that, you need photos from other angles. You claim is absolutely false: ALL the other photos definitely show a "significant crater there" (to anyone who can properly interprete them), and I'm about to show you one more that clinches it.

> 1) that "ramp" is simply too shallow to accomodate a 757 fuselage the way you have drawn it

2) you draw much of the fuselage hitting well outside that ramp

I couldn't find a picture of a 757 at exactly the right angle, so I used an actual photo as the basis of that drawing to get the proportions and engine placements right, but then I redrew the fuselage to make its apparent angle look similar to the angle of that "ramp." The purpose of that drawing was to disabuse you of your (also wrong) assertion that my analysis put the plane into the ground at a 90-degree angle. (I had shown you two diagrams with the profile of the plane projected onto where the original ground surface would have been, simply to show the relative position of the fuselage crater with respect to the wing craters, but apparently you just didn't "get it.") Since it's just a drawing, trying to prove anything about the size of the fuselage from that drawing is futile and pointless, but even so, what you're saying wouldn't make any sense even if it were an actual photo: You really can't tell from that angle where the plane is hitting the crater, anyway, because of the perspective. (That's exactly why my previous diagrams just showed the ground-projected profile.) You're grasping at straws. Look again at the full-size aerial photo (where the fuselage is not in the way) and compare that curved crater lip to the man: That part of the crater is easily large enough to accommodate a 757 fuselage, which is only about 12 feet in diameter. My drawing is accurate enough to demonstrate my argument, since you seemed to be struggling (but failing) to understand it. So no more diversions: If you want to prove me wrong, you need to prove that the plane couldn't go into the crater like that, and trying to nit-pick that particular drawing ain't gonna do it.

Which brings us to this: Yes, I believe the angle of that north crater wall is indeed the same as the angle that the plane entered the ground. Once again, your problem seems to be an inability to accurately perceive perspective. I anticipated that, which is why I also gave you the diagram with the yellow line showing where the top-center of the fuselage would have gone down the "ramp." That line is consistent with my drawing.

> 3) the starboard wing and engine still hit past the marks in your diagram-- and any explosion is going to push things forward due to momentum. It is absurd to say the wing exploded and magically moved the wing backwards to gouge the earth at the same time leaving the earth in front untouched.

Let me try to explain this to you again: In my drawing, I aligned the wings with the wing marks that are beyond where the fuel tanks exploded, and everything else falls right into place. There's nothing "magical" about the exploding fuel creating force in all directions, and your assertion that "any explosion is going to push things forward due to momentum" is ridiculous. Your characterization of what my drawing shows is totally bogus; once again, the photo is accurate enough to prove my point. And once again you're not looking at all the pictures to figure out what the crater really looks like. This photo from the side leaves no doubt about where the wing and engine hit, and it's completely consistent with my drawing:


So now, after repeatedly being mistaken in your perceptions of the crater, your only "proof" that I'm wrong is that it looks to you like that north wall is at too shallow an angle for the fuselage to have gone in there. But if you want to prove me wrong, you have to prove that the yellow line in my previous diagram or the red line in the photo above, both showing where the top-center of the fuselage went down the "ramp," is at too shallow an angle. Just claiming that it's too shallow based on nothing but your own faulty ability to perceive perspective and relative position in photos won't do it.

But now the game is over; I now have definitive proof that you are quite wrong: I have a 3D picture of the crater.

This is a "stereo pair" of images taken from a video shot from a moving helicopter. When a video camera is moving, it's often possible to get images of the same object from two slightly different angles, which is the basis of stereo photography (like a ViewMaster). The first set is a "left-right-left" set, which allows "free viewing" two different ways. The left and center images together make a "parallel" pair which can be viewed in 3D by diverging your eyes, as if looking at something in the far distance, until those two images converge. The center and right images together make a "cross-eyed" pair which can be viewed in 3D by crossing your eyes, as if looking at something close, until those two images converge. (The cross-eyed method seems to be easier for some people if you first look at your finger tip about half-way between your eyes and your screen, then move your finger until you can see the images beyond converging, then look to the screen without changing the angle of your eyes.)



If you have a pair of red/blue-green (cyan) 3D glasses, here is a full-size anaglyph:



And if you happen to have a 3D viewer for viewing "Holmes size" stereographs (i.e. like the antique stereoscopes), here is a full-size parallel view:



And finally, if you can't view this image in 3D, here's a copy with the angle of the north crater wall indicated with a yellow line:



Viewed in 3D, it is quite clear that the north wall of the crater is at the angle that the plane hit the ground, and the tail mark proves that that's where the fuselage went in. And when compared to the centerline of the wings, that edge of the crater is precisely where the top of the fuselage should be. ALL the physical evidence and the eyewitness testimony indicate that Flight 93 crashed into that crater.

Game over; you lost. And yes, you owe the board an apology for claiming your nonsense was "rock-solid proof" of anything.

[spooked911]

139. How did the wings explode backwards when the plane was going 580mph?

And how did they explode without even leaving a mark where they impacted?

Also, even assuming the fuselage hit the way you say it did, what happened to the top half of the fuselage? Why didn't the upper half of the fuselage scrape open a crater in that incredibly soft earth?





By the way, you only have ONE wingtip aligned in the crater.

[William Seger]

140. Get over it, man; you were wrong

For the third time, if the fuel exploded, that would generate force in all directions. When the fuselage and wing tips hit the ground, however, they apparently didn't generate enough backward force on that spongy dirt to throw much dirt to the north side. Are you saying you really can't understand something that simple? If so, then as I've said before, you really need to find a new hobby.

> And how did they explode without even leaving a mark where they impacted?

I'm sure you don't really mean that you can't see "a mark where they impacted" -- they left deep V-shaped craters! -- so I don't have any idea what you're trying to say. Sorry, I can't answer a question that unintelligible.

> Also, even assuming the fuselage hit the way you say it did, what happened to the top half of the fuselage? Why didn't the upper half of the fuselage scrape open a crater in that incredibly soft earth?

What the hell is wrong with your eyes, Spooky? Even if you can't see the stereo image in 3D -- which irrefutably proves the case -- surely you can compare that picture to all the others and see that the top of the fuselage did "scrape open a crater." That area that you were trying to call a "shallow, one-foot-deep depression" is a wall that goes all the way to the bottom of the crater. Since it's at the angle the plane hit, and since it's right at the distance from the wings that the top of the fuselage would be -- as I've proved to you with several diagrams! -- the only logical conclusion is that that wall was made by the top of the fuselage.

> By the way, you only have ONE wingtip aligned in the crater.

No, you are simply wrong again, unless your last thin straw is that I overlaid that drawing a tiny fraction of a degree off. If you're referring to the wing on the left of the drawing, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you can't look at the other photos (including the ones I used for the stereo images) and figure out where the mark left by that wingtip would be: It's down the center of that V-shaped crater made by the exploding fuel tanks, which is precisely where I put the wing when I overlaid my drawing on the photo.

You were wrong when you claimed to have "undeniable proof" that the crater was too small, and you were wrong when you claimed to have "rock-solid proof" the plane couldn't have hit the way the FDR data said it hit -- an FDR that was found in the crater! (I see that Killtown's latest idiotic "smoking gun" has already been debunked, BTW; too bad you were so quick to endorse that -- minus one more point on your reputation as an analyst.) You've obviously got nothing left to say about the crater but to keep repeating the same debunked nonsense. It's time to move on.

[spooked911]

141. You're talking gobbledygook

since apparently you don't know what direction the plane was going.

I'm not wrong about the wing alignment proof, you have failed to refute my proof.

Actually you helped prove my case.

Thanks.

:)

[William Seger]

142. Are you serious?

Are you seriously telling me that you don't understand something this simple? You just don't understand what I'm saying, and you don't understand how I've proved what I'm saying? You misunderstand it so badly that you say I "don't know what direction the plane was going?"

Unbelievable.

You are either into some serious denial, or... well, never mind.

[spooked911]

143. I understand the whole scene very well

You are the one who could not get the wing to line up with the crater marks and then you cannot seem to understand how this undermines the official story.

You had the starboard wing going further south than the crater mark, similar to my analyses-- you had the starboard wing impacting where there was no crater! The plane was GOING SOUTH. The wing could not have gone back north!

I'm sorry, but you are the one who is having trouble here.

[William Seger]

144. WTF? No, you do NOT "understand the whole scene very well"

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand it at all, even after tedious explanations and multiple photos and diagrams.

No, the starboard wing most certainly does not "go further south than the crater mark." It goes right down the middle of that V-shaped crater, and other photos show that the wingtip mark beyond that part of the crater also extends right from the middle of that V-shaped crater. Also, the engine lines up perfectly with the part of the crater that looks like an engine crater. My drawing was only intended as an attempt to explain something that you seemed to be struggling (unsuccessfully) with, since you kept saying that I must think the plane went in at a 90-degree angle, so I don't claim pixel-level accuracy for it, but the drawing is certainly accurate enough to prove that your analysis was simply wrong: The plane hit as the FDR data recorded. Take another look at this, and at least try to relate the details to what's shown in the drawing:



And no, that's not remotely similar to your analysis: You aligned the top of the fuselage to that wing crater.

Your behavior in this thread is becoming increasingly bizarre. For the past couple of weeks, you've just been saying things that simply don't match what's shown in the photos and that don't make any sense. I get the feeling that you think you can slip in a bunch of total bullshit as the last word and I won't respond. That's not going to happen. As I said, if you really want to continue making a fool of yourself over this "rock-solid proof, I'll be happy to oblige.

[spooked911]

133. about my experiment--

you are the one calling it a "bunny cage" and the one who thinks it is an embarrassment. It is only embarrassing and something to mock for people like you. People who can't handle the truth about 9/11. People who will go to extreme lengths to deny the obvious.

It was a little test, an experiment. There is nothing wrong with that. It's a free country. Lots of people do lots of things that other people think are silly. So what.

I didn't draw any great conclusions from my experiment. I didn't say I proved anything. I wanted to see what would happen. So what?

I have NOTHING to apologize for.

[William Seger]

120. Stunned with a flash of insight, I hope

How many different ways do I need to show you that, yes, the plane could have gone in like that? How many times will you simply deny it based on nothing but your own inability to understand it? I thought we were getting somewhere when you started claiming that it couldn't go in like that because that's just a "shallow depression," since that claim is easy to disprove: just look at the other photos. No, you seem to be back to just saying, "No way!" and not even bothering to offer any logical argument or evidence.

I'd say we're about finished here.

[William Seger]

106. ... and one more hint

On this photo, I've drawn a yellow arrow pointing at a group of rocks (or perhaps plane debris) that are in what you claim is a "one-foot-deep depression." I've also drawn a red arrow pointing to a large rock or piece of debris that appears to be either at the edge of this "shallow depression" or farther down near the bottom of the crater.



Now, please see if you can locate both of those features on both of the insets from the MSNBC vidio, which show the crater looking from the other side, and from two different angles.

Got 'em spotted? Good job! Now, using your awsome powers to visualize perspective, please indicate to me where this "shallow, one-foot-deep depression" is in those two photos.

Can't find it in those photos? Hmmm... now, the hard part: Think about it.

[spooked911]

112. Are you saying the fuselage went where those arrows are?

Otherwise, I don't understand your point.

[William Seger]

116. If you really don't understand, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised

I'll say it again; you appear to have virtually no ability to view several different pictures of the crater and form an accurate understanding of the thing in three dimensions. Those arrows are pointing to two features (either rocks or debris) that can also be located in the other two photos taken from the other side. (Let me know if you really can't locate them and I'll help you out.) Those three photos taken together show pretty clearly that those features are on a sloping wall that goes all the way to the bottom of the crater, which means that your "one foot depression" exists only in your imagination. That section of the crater, which you are so desperately trying to ignore or wave away, is consistent with the angle the plane entered the ground. The only logical conclusion is that that part of the crater was made by the top of the fuselage, as proved by its position relative to the wings and by the mark made by the tail. Your "rock-solid" proof has been dustified.

[William Seger]

109. Still looking for that "one foot deep depression"?

[spooked911]

113. No, you already showed me where it was

and you already showed me how ridiculous the official story is

[William Seger]

119. Pathetic dodge

There are the photos. Show me exactly where you see a "one-foot-deep depression." Surely, you had some reason for making that claim? Stop repeating the claim unless you can show me the reason

[Perzuki]

58. Where'd the Plane Go?

"And, we know from the crash of Northwest flight 710 under similar circumstances that a high-speed plane crashing into soft dirt can be buried in the crater."

No, we don't. We don't know that at all. In fact, I have never seen a single incidence of a plane crash on vegetated landscape in which the wreckage of the plane has not been clearly visible and accessible by investigators.

Suggesting that 130 tons of metal could disappear into the earth without a trace is ludicrous. Such fantastic claims are best filed under the heading of "Don't Believe Your Lying Eyes!"

I mean, SHEESH . . . .

Duane Behrens

[William Seger]

71. That's okay, you're just wrong

http://www.avsaf.org/reports/US/1960.03.17_NorthwestAirlines_LockheedElectra.pdf

(ETA: See page 5.)

[vincent_vega_lives]

72. What I have always claimed

Steep angle, nearly inverted, one wing struck first, then nose, resulting in one engine being catapulted 300m.

[spooked911]

13. Better images posted here--

The proof diagram:

[MervinFerd]

18. Spooky! Could the crater be caused by "dustification" of the dirt?

Maybe the dustification beam from the Space Station was aimed at the plane at 10,000 feet, but also blew a hole in the ground right there in Pennsylvania.

This is -very- important! We are beginning to learn some of the functional characteristics of dustification beams!! The beam from the International Space Station passed right through the jetliner, causing it to "dustify", but then it deposited airplane pieces and parts of human bodies in the ground below.

-Nobody- in the MSM or the 911 Commission has determined the location of the International Space Station that day. Can that be coincidence? Hardly!

[rman]

23. Is there any documentation of the digging up of the plane,

or digging down the crater, in order to recover the black box and the remains of the passengers that were identified by the Shanksville coroner?

[MervinFerd]

24. Of course not. That was done secretly by two deep cover operatives...

and they were killed afterward.

[jschurchin]

25. If there is rman the FBI has it and.........

it will never see the light of day.

"We will tell you what happened, and you WILL believe us"

[rman]

26. So, no reports, no photos

of the recovering of the bodies from a plane buried underground.
And no post-recovery reports or photos of the crash site, i presume.

[MervinFerd]

27. I told you already---two deep undercover operatives...

and we killed them afterward.

Probably would have been -much- easier to plant the plane parts and bodies so it looked like an actual crash! But the boys in Crash Simulation got creative. We had to kill them too. Sad, really. Hard to keep the crews motivated when they know they are going to get shot after they finish.

Anyway, that's your answer.

There -are- pictures, but they are fakes too. Sad, there too, really. The girl in Photo Simulation was really cute. I asked her out once. Oh, well we will find a replacement for her.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. There were hundreds of people there, rman.

Many of those were local volunteers.

[jschurchin]

35. I have looked online for any type of

official report or photographs, as I am sure you have also. I have been able to find no Official post recovery report. It's almost as if 9-11 never happened, well at least according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

[spooked911]

40. Indeed. I know what you mean. It's bizarre.

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. "almost as if 9-11 never happened"

Yeah if its not on the fucking internet then it didn't happen. The internet is for SHARING information not legitimizing events!

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. Would it really matter?

It would just result in claims of fakes reports or photos... i presume. :shrug:

[spooked911]

38. kick

kick for proof's sake

[spooked911]

41. the guy in this old news clip says the crater was 10 by 20 feet

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

[MervinFerd]

43. Yeah, the Crash Simulation Ops team really fell down on that one.

They claimed the backhoe broke down. But, I think they just went home early. Thought that little hole was good enough and nobody would notice!

Didn't reckon with you, Spooky! No way! You're ON THE BALL!

[spooked911]

46. when all else fails--

mock the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.

Excellent work.

Now, about those mis-aligned wing marks and the too small of a crater?--

[Sweet Pea]

48. When it is so easy to....

why not?

[MervinFerd]

49. "mis-aligned wing marks"---I think the Crash Sim guys were smoking ...

some funny cigarettes. If you know what I mean.

[spooked911]

50. Not sure what you mean, actually

are you admitting the crash was rigged up?

[vincent_vega_lives]

66. The fact that you're not sure what he means

is VERY telling...and fucking hilarious. :rofl:

[William Seger]

57. So, what are you saying?

That that guy saw it before they finished digging it out? That no pictures were taken until the crater was finished? So, the first responders and citizens around Shanksville who got there before this guy were all in on it, or are afraid to say now that they watched the CIA finish digging the crater and scattering debris around?

It really makes no difference at all to you how preposterous the story gets or how many people you have to slander to try to keep your idiotic theory alive, does it?

[spooked911]

59. Huh? He said the crater was 10 by 20 feet

What is so preposterous about that?

[William Seger]

67. THIS is what's preposterous about that

So, you ARE saying that you think the crater was dug out some more after that guy saw it, and you believe this photo was taken after that?

[vincent_vega_lives]

73. Looks more like 25' by 50'

for just the main crater.

[spooked911]

88. Hardly

it is in fact very difficult to gauge the size of the crater in that picture because we are seeing the person from the top-- which gives a distorted view. Plus, we can barely see the person, and it is hard to know what position they are in-- for instance, are they indeed standing erect?

I stand by my measurements-- the central crater was a little over 20 feet around, with a little over 30 feet between "engine" craters.

[William Seger]

90. THIS is what you measured, Hawkeye

By deliberately taking the narrowest section you could find in that photo, your line actually ends in mid-air on the right, because you stopped at a curved wall that is actually beyond where you were measuring (but it's at a lower elevation, so it's not immediately obvious).

Now, tell me again about your superior abilities to visualize perspective in a photo.

[spooked911]

93. A few points in response

1) I'm not sure what that red dotted line is supposed to be. It is not the camera center view.

2) I did make a mistake by assuming that part of the crater was the widest, and thus the crater is in fact wider than I thought. So roughly, the crater is 30 feet from north to south

3) you didn't actually get the camera angle of the top photo right in your lower diagram-- in fact, it looks like I went to the sharp little rim close to the person-- not further to the left as you have indicated

4) my proof that the official story is wrong in this post doesn't require a strict measurement of the crater size

[spooked911]

95. After more careful measurement, with this new perspective

I take back that 30 feet from north to south measurement

I think it is 25 feet from north to south, max.

Again, that aerial picture foreshortens the man quite a bit, giving a misleading view of scale.

[William Seger]

101. "More careful measurement" ?!?! Jeez

> I think it is 25 feet from north to south, max.

Try again. No, it certainly isn't 25 feet, even if I take your "21 foot" estimate as close enough. But then again, given your track record so far, it's anybody's guess WHERE you are measuring now. The only thing I'm certain of is that you have absolutely no interest in knowing how big the crater is or how the plane went into the crater. All you care about now is trying to keep your idiotic "no plane" theory on life-support.

The fuselage crater is egg-shaped, and its longest axis, along the direction the plane was traveling (and including the part made by the top of the fuselage that you mistook for a "shallow depression"), is somewhere between 40 and 45 feet. The width (along the line of the wings) is about 35 feet.

[William Seger]

104. Simple answers

> 1) I'm not sure what that red dotted line is supposed to be. It is not the camera center view.

The red line is a line roughly from the northern edge of the engine crater (the close one in the photo you marked) to the point where the port wing crater meets the fuselage crater, which is where you stopped your measurement. As can be seen in your marked photo, your measurement stops approximately on the line between those two features, which would be in mid-air.

2) I did make a mistake by assuming that part of the crater was the widest, and thus the crater is in fact wider than I thought. So roughly, the crater is 30 feet from north to south

You're getting warmer, but you're still short. You can even use your "21-foot" line if you want, and you'll get something more than 40 feet across the longest part of the crater in the north-south direction (which needs to be all the way to the edge where the tail mark is seen. You can't call that a "shallow depression" just because it's a lighter color than the dirt that's pushed up on the other side; look at where the light is coming from. Look at the other aerial photos.)

3) you didn't actually get the camera angle of the top photo right in your lower diagram-- in fact, it looks like I went to the sharp little rim close to the person-- not further to the left as you have indicated

The yellow line is roughly perpendicular to where I judge the camera to be. If you don't think that's right, twisting it a few degrees one way or the other won't make more than a few pixels difference, if that. I have no idea what you mean by "not further to the left as you have indicated." The crater edge where you stopped measuring is to the right of the person in my photo, roughly where the right end of my red line stops. And again, you can move that red line around a little if you don't think it's quite right, but you can't move it enough to make much difference in the gigantic error you made in measuring the crater.

4) 4) my proof that the official story is wrong in this post doesn't require a strict measurement of the crater size

Your first "proof" certainly did, and I don't see you retracting it on your blog. Your second "proof" now depends on claiming that the fuselage couldn't have been caused that "shallow depression" on the north side of the fuselage crater, but apparently you don't have anything whatsoever to back up that claim. So now your "proof" relies on just repeating that over and over and over, despite the fact that the photos tell a different story. This "proof" is just as invalid as your first "proof."

[spooked911]

94. Also-- I didn't "deliberately" take the narrowest section I could find

that is a flat out lie.

Clearly the area I took was NOT the narrowest section, but rather the section that best fit where the man was standing-- as was appropriate for my measurement. I took the line straight across as it is also appropriate to stay in the same plane.

I did make a mistake though, which was to assume that the line I drew across went across the widest section of the crater.

SORRY.

It would be nice if you could admit your mistakes.

[William Seger]

105. Apology not accepted

You keep claiming to have "indisputable proof" of this, and "irrefutable proof" of that, and "rock-solid proof" of the subject of this thread. And time after time, it turns out your "proof" is based on sloppy, half-assed analysis and ignorance. Don't you think you should be a little more careful when you're accusing the hundreds of people who cleaned up the mess at Shanksville of being accessories to mass murder? Don't you think you should be a little more careful when you're telling the families of the victims that their own government murdered their loved ones and hundreds of people are involved in the cover-up? Don't you think? Or do you just "analyze?"

[spooked911]

110. I meant it when I said proof. I did not use that word lightly.

You have yet to show me how I am wrong except by showing highly flawed diagrams that don't prove what you think they prove.

My proof still stands.

Note, I did not say, that I had proved the crash was faked or that the crash didn't involve a Boeing 757.*

My proof involves the fact that the official trajectory of the plane** does not match the crash crater.

PERIOD.

The fact that you still do not seem to understand my basic point is a problem.


I'm pissed about the lies of 9/11 and I think the victims' families should be too.



*While those are my hypotheses, I can't prove them at this time.

**Inverted, 40 degree angle.

[William Seger]

118. OK, you've convinced me that you really believe that

... which is a damn shame, but again I'll say you should stop wasting your time trying to analyze photos since you clearly don't have the visualization skills necessary.

> I'm pissed about the lies of 9/11 and I think the victims' families should be too.

You haven't proved a single "lie," yet you keep loudly claiming to have done so based on half-assed "analysis" and pure ignorance. You are living in a delusion where you and Killtown are heroes instead of crackpots. I don't care what you put on your blog; all I'm trying to do is to convince you to stop embarrassing DU with your nonsense.

[spooked911]

96. As far as NW710

it went into the ground at essentially a 90 degree angle after plummeting from over 10,000 feet up.

Which would give extremely different crash results and leave a different crater than the 40 degree upside angle we are given for UA93.

There is no denying this.

[spooked911]

97. some good discussion here about flight 93

http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53041

[Bolo Boffin]

98. So are you 93questions in that discussion? n/t

[spooked911]

99. No I am not

I promise

[William Seger]

102. No, it is NOT a "good discussion"

The only thing in there is a bunch of eyeball estimates made by people who never got very close to the crater (and who apparently aren't very good at eyeball estimates). Why the hell would you have any interest in those inaccurate eyeball estimates when more accurate estimates can be made from the photos? (That's a rhetorical question, since the reason is obvious: accurate estimates shoot down your idiotic "no plane" theory.)

[StrictlyRockers]

107. A real jetliner crash site has wreckage.

Ok, we need another picture now. We see above what it looks like when a jetliner crashes. So, what does it look like when 46 passengers, 1000 tons of plane and more than 11,000 gallons of fuel hit the ground that supposedly covered an old quarry and vanish into thin air? Here ya go!


We see that no wreckage is left burning aboveground, just smoking, smoking. But you know, where's there's smoke there's fire. Enough smoke to evaporate the plane, the passengers, the engines, etc? I think not.

In fact, there was no plane left to see when nearby residents and first responders arrived - no engines, fuselage, luggage, bodies in the 20 feet long by 10 feet wide grave, not a particularly large area for such a large plane. Only a confetti-shower of itsy bitsy pieces was left.

In Paul Thompson's Timeline, witnesses saw burning debris fall from the plane "as far as eight miles away, with workers at Indian Lake Marina saying that they saw 'a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion.'" Also this debris, along with human remains, was found again as far as eight miles from the site. Also the debris fell from the sky, not exploded upward out of the hole.

Eight miles of debris is not consistent with a plane being rammed straight into the ground. This is another offical story which simply DOES NOT ADD UP.

SR

[William Seger]

108. "Serious researcher" huh?

You could at least read the thread before posting.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

128. Eight miles of debris

That's been debunked. Wreckage found "eight miles away" was determined using Google maps using drivable distance (road route), but it is one mile 'as the crow flies.'

[vincent_vega_lives]

129. In addition

I believe that debris referred to paper products.

[strizi64]

138. another pic

Do you see a plane here?

Crossair Flight 498:


http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/100100.htm



There were planes there, in both instances