Shanksville contrasted with Lockerbie

[Ezlivin]

Two large aircraft plummeted to earth from cruising altitude. Yet when one contrasts the scene on the ground, Shanksville stands out as an anomaly.

American Flight 103 - Lockerbie

Plane debris and dead passengers were scattered over an area of 845 square miles, from southern Scotland to northern England.

"The fire was falling down from the sky," said resident Jasmine Bell. "Everything was burning - the driveway, the lawn, the hedges, the rooftops." In seconds the quiet normality of Lockerbie, and all the Christmas preparation that was taking place, was shattered.

Fire from the sky was followed by the rain of bodies, some still strapped into their seats. They landed in gardens, streets, play areas, some were even left hanging in trees. ...

Then, one minute after the explosion, a large section of the plane's fuselage containing the wings and 200,000lbs of aviation fuel, ploughed into a Lockerbie street. Traveling at more than 500 mph it directly hit the house at 13 Sherwood Crescent with a deafening roar, the impact registered 1.6 on the Richter scale and a massive crater 155 feet long was gouged into the ground where the houses once stood.

The aviation fuel exploded when the plane hit the ground sending what residents described as "an atomic mushroom" through the houses in the crescent. Many homes - along with the people inside - were vaporised. Another 21 homes were so badly damaged they had to be demolished. The giant fireball rose above the houses and moved towards the A74 Glasgow to Carlisle motorway, burning cars on the southbound carriageway.

The scene of the crater at daybreak was beamed round the world and is seared into the public consciousness. It is an unforgettable image. Many of those in Lockerbie were in a state of terror. The explosion on the ground was, in the words of one resident, "like pictures of the Hiroshima bomb going off".

In the fields and farm land around the town, the scene was no less horrendous. The plane's nose-cone, containing the cockpit and the bodies of several crew members, was embedded in a field beside the small church in the village of Tundergarth about three miles away. Scattered everywhere were dead bodies, body parts, aircraft wreckage, pieces of personal luggage. Resident June Wilson said: "Some (of the dead) were like waxen dolls. Other people were dismembered. Feet were missing and others had been horribly compressed by the fall."


Source

And despite the high speed impact from altitude, they managed to piece together the 747.

Thorough Investigation

The initial investigation into the crash site by Dumfries and Galloway police involved military and civilian helicopter surveys, satellite imaging, and a fingertip search of the area by police and soldiers. More than 10,000 pieces of debris were retrieved, tagged and entered into a computer tracking system.

The fuselage of the aircraft was reconstructed by air accident investigators, revealing a 20-inch hole consistent with an explosion in the forward cargo hold. Examination of the baggage containers revealed that the container nearest the hole had blackening, pitting, and severe damage indicating a "high-energy event" had taken place inside it. A series of test explosions were carried out to confirm the precise location and quantity of explosive used. Fragments of a Samsonite suitcase believed to have contained the bomb were recovered, together with parts and pieces of circuit board identified as part of a Toshiba Bombeat radio cassette player, similar to that used to conceal a Semtex bomb seized by West German police from a Palestinian terror group two months earlier. Items of baby clothing were also traced to the same suitcase, which were subsequently proven to have been made in Malta.

The clothes were traced to a Maltese merchant, Tony Gauci, who became a key prosecution witness, testifying that he sold the clothes to a man of Libyan appearance, whom he later identified as Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.

A circuit board fragment, found embedded in a piece of charred material, was identified as part of an electronic timer similar to that found on a Libyan intelligence agent who had been arrested 10 months previously, carrying materials for a Semtex bomb. The timer was traced through its Swiss manufacturer, Mebo, to the Libyan military.

Investigators also discovered that an unaccompanied bag had been routed onto PA103, via the interline baggage system, from Luqa airport on Air Malta flight KM180 to Frankfurt, and then by feeder flight PA103A to Heathrow. This unaccompanied bag was shown at the trial to have been the bomb suitcase. Source

It's amazing what can be done when an honest investigation is performed.

[AlwaysQuestion]

1. Yes.........

and aren't you completely and utterly amazed that 100 percent of the American population don't smell the stench of a gargantuan rat in its collective midst? After all the rat's been rotting for over 5 years now. It defies understanding..............truly!!!!!! And why would any sane, thinking individual try to rationalize the government's inaction towards discovery. It drives me to seething anger. Perhaps there's a sociologist among us who can explain the mentality of the hordes. Help me understand the insanity.

[Ezlivin]

4. The contrast could not be more stark

Lockerbie was the site of a real accident; Shanksville was the site of real propaganda.

Can you tell we are at war? If I drive around my area there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this country is at war with anyone. Nothing looks changed.

The American people have responded in a Pavlovian manner to the marketing to which they've been subjected. We are under a constant barrage of marketing messages. And, unfortunately, our own government is complicit in this as they have worked so very hard, not to actually solve the problem, but to convince us all that there are no problems. Keep shopping. Go to football games. All is well.

[Nozebro]

2. Your main point is well taken, but Libya was wrongly blamed, framed, and only

paid reparations in order to "move on".

[mirandapriestly]

3. Yes, A police officer testified the CIA planted evidence

and....nothing. look how easy it is for them to do this kind of stuff for some relatively inconsequential political reason... and you never hear about it.


http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1855852005

Scotsman.com News - Top Stories - Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked



A FORMER Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated.

The retired officer - of assistant chief constable rank or higher - has testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people.

[Crim_n al]

5. There's no comparison. False flag operations

in those days were run with skill and precision, and tracks were carefully covered over.

For some reason all this has changed since the turn of the century, and any decent spook would be ashamed to be associated with the stunts the current manipulators have pulled.

[TheWraith]

6. Well, that article must be completely wrong.

It refers to aviation fuel producing a high temperature fireball, which vaporized people and buildings around it. Anyone who's read the WTC collapse threads knows that aviation fuel never burns hotter than a good warm bath!

On a serious note, that is this contrast? I fail to see this huge gulf between the two incidents that's described, unless you refer to the fact that they reassembled flight 103 in an attempt to find the source of the crash. I would think from the phone calls, the cockpit voice recorder, and the flight data recorder, that the cause of the flight 93 crash was pretty obviously the airplane encountering the ground.

On the other hand, I do find it ironic that people here ridicule the discovery of one of the hijacker's passports in the WTC debris, but have no problem with identifying the 103 bomber from the clothing found.

[Ezlivin]

7. Points of contention

It refers to aviation fuel producing a high temperature fireball, which vaporized people and buildings around it. Anyone who's read the WTC collapse threads knows that aviation fuel never burns hotter than a good warm bath!

Aviation fuel (in this case, jet fuel which is kerosine-based) has an open-air burning temperature of 260-315°C (500-600°F); the maximum burning temperature is 980°C (1796°F). This is more than sufficient to "vaporize" wooden structures, flammable contents and humans. When the planes struck the WTC towers they too vaporized wooden structures, flammable contents and humans. Since the WTC was constructed of high-grade steel structural assemblies tested for fire resistance rating in accordance with ASTM E 119 and concrete, those structural elements were far less affected. The NIST can only say that the steel components recovered demonstrate that there was "limited exposure if any above 250 ºC."

So much for a fire hot enough to cause high-grade steel to sag.

On a serious note, that is this contrast? I fail to see this huge gulf between the two incidents that's described, unless you refer to the fact that they reassembled flight 103 in an attempt to find the source of the crash. I would think from the phone calls, the cockpit voice recorder, and the flight data recorder, that the cause of the flight 93 crash was pretty obviously the airplane encountering the ground.

If you claimed someone was murdered and your evidence was phone calls and other recordings, you still have to show the body! Nothing is "obvious" during a legitimate criminal investigation. Yes there are stories that Flight 93 hit the ground, but what is the physical evidence? In other words where is the body?

What did the coroner of Shanksville say? "This is the most eerie thing," he says. "I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop."

Contrast that with Lockerbie: "...rain of bodies, some still strapped into their seats. They landed in gardens, streets, play areas, some were even left hanging in trees."

What did the crash site at Shanksville look like to an eyewitness? Konicki: "Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there."

Contrast that with Lockerbie: "The plane's nose-cone, containing the cockpit and the bodies of several crew members, was embedded in a field beside the small church in the village of Tundergarth about three miles away. Scattered everywhere were dead bodies, body parts, aircraft wreckage, pieces of personal luggage."

Both planes hit the ground at 500+ MPH, yet at one scene there are bodies and large, recognizable aircraft parts (despite an "atomic mushroom" and vaporization); at the other scene there is a smoking hole and nothing that resembles bodies or aircraft parts.

On the other hand, I do find it ironic that people here ridicule the discovery of one of the hijacker's passports in the WTC debris, but have no problem with identifying the 103 bomber from the clothing found.

This has nothing to do with identifying the culprits, but everything to do with the manner in which the investigation was done.

[Nozebro]

8. Excellent. Thanks for posting that. Even though it won't have any

positive effect on booshco 9/11 CT'ers, it WILL help educate and arm 9/11 Truth Seekers for their next encounter with a truth suppressor, and for that, I'm sure I speak for most people here when I say "well done".

[vincent_vega_lives]

9. Man..

you do like your clever little buzzwords. Did you learn them in "9/11 Truth Seekers" class?

[G Hawes]

11. Point of contention of all points of contention

Is it not obvious that an airplane that suffered a bomb blast while in flight would, by necessity, have an entirely different debris field and entirely different physical characteristics than an airplane that dove into the ground nose down at high speed on purpose without having first been blasted apart by a bomb?

This thread seems to comparing apples and oranges and claiming that apple juice is the only logical result.

[Nozebro]

12. Are you of the opinion that a debris field doesn't have to have debris, in

order to be a debris field? Is that a new booshco 9/11 CT'er concept?

[Ezlivin]

13. "[W]ithout having first been blasted apart by a bomb..."

And how do you know that Flight 93 was not "blasted apart by a bomb"? Or that it was "dove into the ground nose down at high speed on purpose"?

Without a thorough investigation at the time of the crash all you have is conjecture.

Instead of an investigation that searched for the cause of the crash, a story was simply accepted ("Let's roll") and things proceeded from there.

Wouldn't it be nice to have the reconstructed fuselage to make your point? Wouldn't it be nice to have the actual physical evidence to make your case?

And do you not find it curious that an aircraft that impacted the ground at over 500 MPH and "vaporized" houses still managed to leave sufficient parts behind for a reconstruction? The Lockerbie aircraft was bombed in flight and impacted the ground at high speed. The Shanksville aircraft impacted the ground at high speed (we are told). No bomb. And before you claim that Flight 93 was going much faster, I'll point out that there is a VNE (velocity never exceed) speed that these aircraft cannot violate without risking structural failure. It simply could not gain the velocity it needed to "liquefy" or completely "vaporize" the aircraft as has been claimed.

[AZCat]

14. IIRC, VNE has more to do with effectiveness of control surfaces.

Airflow around an aircraft starts to act funny when it exceeds a certain speed and the effectiveness of control surfaces can be reduced or negated by the changes in airflow. This is actually what presented the largest hurdle to a faster-than-sound aircraft, not powerplant limitations.

[planeman]

15. The cockpit of PA103 fly down at 500mph and land in a big piece?

When the cockpit of UA93 hit the same kind of terrain at the same kind of speed and got vapourized?Mind you I was on the west side highway in downtown Manhattan on 9-11 and saw the seond plane approach and hit.But there was debris lying on the street afterwards.

[AZCat]

16. I'm not sure why you're replying to me.

Are you asking why there is a difference between the two cases?

[planeman]

17. Yes.Seeing as you appear to have some scientific acumen.

I hold you in a higher regard that the conpiracy theorists here.

[AZCat]

18. Thanks, but a comparison such as this...

would stump far greater minds than mine. It's a difficult question because of the nature of the phenomena - transient, dynamic, multi-body collisions with unverified boundary conditions. With such a nonlinear situation I wouldn't be able to make any judgements unless I did extensive modelling using, for example, the Monte-Carlo method in conjunction with sophisticated simulation software (not ANSYS, for god's sake) to get an idea of the range of possibilities for such events. Then I could compare the actual sequences to my sets of simulated events and perhaps give some meaningful answers, but the possibility exists that even with sophisticated models there are enough differences between them and reality to prevent successful analysis or prediction.

[Ezlivin]

19. According to this source

"Exceeding VNE risks structural failure, because the aircraft is being with a less than acceptable structural safety factor for one or more components."

http://www.answers.com/topic/vne

My CFI told me that "it would be bad" (his droll way of driving home a point) to exceed V_NE. So I was a good student and didn't. Perhaps he was exaggerating; I was not bold enough to test his assertion. So I just played around with V_X and V_Y.

:)

[AZCat]

23. Okay.

Perhaps it is dependent on the particular aircraft?

[G Hawes]

20. Is there something about

my post that you find contentious?

Please read it again. I don't think there's anything about it is subject to controversy.

There is no evidence that United flight 93 was bombed. The trajectory and speed of its unfortunate crash is fairly well documented. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, of course. Do you? I haven't seen any.

There have been thorough investigations conducted, as you seem to be aware. If you have reasons and evidence to believe that those investigations are faulty, please elaborate.

The rest of your post is just more "apples v. oranges".

Edit to add: I stumbled upon this sub-sub-sub forum without realizing its intent or its mandate as I'm fairly new. Is this intended only for people who believe in conspiracy theories? If so, my apologies for posting here.


Edit to add again: I've just read through more of this sub forum and it has become obvious that it is totally crazy, so please disregard my prior 2 posts here. I do not wish to be associated with such lunacy, so I won't be posting here again. Good luck to you in your, er, endeavors.

[rman]

22. Two planes crash into the ground at high speed,

one leaves a crater and lot of debris at the location of impact, the other leaves nothing but a plane-shaped hole in the ground and debris scattered over a vast area but virtually none at the place of impact.
So what has been the basis for determining the trajectory and speed of the latter?

[TheWraith]

27. Pan Am 103 did't hit the ground at high speed.

It disintegrated in mid air.

[TheWraith]

26. There were eyewitnesses to the thing wobbling around over the town.

Including people who watched it heel over and go down behind the treeline, followed by a loud "crunch."

And Pan Am 103 did not hit the ground at 500 miles per hour. That's a patently false statement, which I suggest you fact-check and retract.

[rman]

21. good points, but still there is the Shanksville coroner

who claims he processed many corpses from flight 93. This and debris found over a large area (not at the supposed point of impact) support the theory that the plane was blown up (by a missile or a bomb) in mid air, and that people were on board.

[TheWraith]

25. Let's go through this point by point.

"The NIST can only say that the steel components recovered demonstrate that there was "limited exposure if any above 250 ºC.

"So much for a fire hot enough to cause high-grade steel to sag."

Are you aware that steel doesn't have to sag in order to lose cohesion? Structural steel loses its loadbearing capability at just under 600 degrees fahrenheit--about 300 celsius. And NIST only examined about 1% of the total amount of steel. If just a few of the structural columns went north of 600 degrees, they would buckle, forcing the weight onto other columns, all of which were damaged to a greater or lesser extent by the impact. Result: structural collapse.

"If you claimed someone was murdered and your evidence was phone calls and other recordings, you still have to show the body! Nothing is "obvious" during a legitimate criminal investigation. Yes there are stories that Flight 93 hit the ground, but what is the physical evidence? In other words where is the body?"

I'm guessing that it's the airplane scattered in tiny bits over a field in Pennsylvania.

"What did the coroner of Shanksville say? "This is the most eerie thing," he says. "I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.""

I can see how that would be eerie to a small town coroner, but how is it otherwise relevant? People don't bleed unless they receive an injury before they die. You drop someone from a skyscraper, and they'll die, but they won't bleed. Same for a plane crash.

"Contrast that with Lockerbie: "...rain of bodies, some still strapped into their seats. They landed in gardens, streets, play areas, some were even left hanging in trees.""

None of which says anything about blood. And in any event, how is any of this comparable? Pan Am 103 broke apart in mid air, leaving the aircraft and its contents in freefall. UA93 by all accounts plowed directly into the ground at high speed. Of course the damage to UA93 would be worse.

"What did the crash site at Shanksville look like to an eyewitness? Konicki: "Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.""

A statement which he later clarified, noting that what he meant was that the destruction of the aircraft was near-total, i.e. that you couldn't recognize the debris as having been an aircraft without examination. Out of curiousity, do you really believe that if the plane didn't crash there, that every single person who worked on the recovery, every engineer who looked at the wreckage, is in on the conspiracy, that no one would ever say anything?

"Contrast that with Lockerbie: "The plane's nose-cone, containing the cockpit and the bodies of several crew members, was embedded in a field beside the small church in the village of Tundergarth about three miles away. Scattered everywhere were dead bodies, body parts, aircraft wreckage, pieces of personal luggage."
Both planes hit the ground at 500+ MPH,"

No, UA93 hit the ground at 500 miles per hour. Pan Am 103 hit the ground after disintegrating--thus losing all inertia--and freefalling from 18K feet.

[Old and In the Way]

10. I guess they don't make planes like the way they used to.

Humans, too.

[bushatbooker]

24. Does anybody still believe a 757 caused the Shanks crater?

If so, can somebody please explain what happened to the plane, why it barely left a tail imprint in the grass but no tail, none of the grass around the crater is burnt, how did the forest section at the wrong trajectory get burnt but nothing in between that and the crater, and how an engine was found only a few feet deep when the they supposedly had to give 15ft down to find the rest of the plane?