By Mark Conlon
This is a video analysis of Steve De'aks theory regarding how the plane shaped crater was made in Shanksville on 9/11. In my video and blog below I show that his "alleged" reproduction comparisons using NASA's lab test impact craters and also his own recreation experiments do NOT sufficiently explain how the engine crater or tail section impression were made at the Shanksville crash site. I just want to make it clear to anyone reading this blog post, this is not a personal issue with Steve, it is merely points I wanted to raise which I feel are unamswered in his theory he proposes. It is meant to help rather than discredit him.Background information: Steve De'ak believes "multiple missiles" were used to create the plane shaped hole crater in Shanksville.
Steve has attempted to recreate the plane crater below (Fig A) and (Fig B), however in my opinion doesn't fully explain the observerable crater hole in relation to how the plane's engine and tail section impressions in the ground happened in his recreations or with his "multiple missile" theory explanation? See below:
(Fig A) (No angle shown)
(Fig B) (6.6 Degrees)
The issues I observe with his recreation of the crater is, it does not account for the plane's engine crater or tail section impression which are observed in the crater images in Shanksville. Also there are issues with the angle trajectories Steve uses in his recreations seen in (Fig A) with NO angle trajectory clearly stated although in previous images there is cited - 9.2 degrees shown, and also in (Fig B) a 6.6 degree angle trajectory.
The confusion here arises because Steve cites some NASA lab experiments, where their results which Steve uses for "supportive" evidence of how the craters were created according to NASA using a 4.75 degree angle trajectory. See screen-shot from Steve De'ak's website below:
Steve didn't state this information about the 4.75 degree angle trajectory in the NASA experiments in his articles and vaguely states 10 degrees under horizontal, which I ddin't feel was helpful. See NASA's information below stating a 4.75 degree angle trajectory to achieve their crater which Steve uses in his articles and videos, however NOT mentioning this "specific" information. WHY?
This in the main part would make it very difficult in reality at the Shanksville crash site due to the treeline being far too tall to achieve such a low trajectory such as 4.75 degrees to create at least one side of the plane crater hole from a missile. There is also NO evidence of any damage or disturbance to the adjacent trees from a low angled trajectory such as JASSM missile which Steve "alleges" caused the hole crater. See below:
Comparison studies with the Steve's recreations and the "real" Shanksville crash site crater below:
Steve's Recreation 1 below:
Steve's Recreation 2 below:
Shanksville Crater Image 1 below:
Shanksville Crater Image 2 below:
Shanksville Crater Image 3 below:
Another view from the ground:
The comparisons above using Steve's recreation attempts of the impact craters does NOT sufficiently explain how the engine crater or tail section impression were made at the Shanksville crash site. His comparisons do not contain these two distinct areas in his recreations to be accepted as adequate recreations as he claims. The same can be said for the NASA lab experiments comparisons which he uses to support his theory, as these are NOT sufficient for comparison purposes, alhough the idea is.
If "multiple missiles" were used to create the Shanksville plane crater then this would not be consistent with overwhelming eyewitness testimonies who speak of witnessing a "large" plane crash into the ground, not missiles? Steve does NOT address this evidence, and has been quite misleading about the eyewitness accounts, by saying that people both "heard" and "seen" missiles in Shanksville. See the screen-shot below from Steve De'ak's article.
There is no evidence of any eyewitnesses "SEEING" a missile or missiles. The only reports of missiles from witnesses is, what they "interpreted" to be a missile from only hearing the sound. No one actually observed anything with their eyes who report seeing a missile or missiles. Susan McElwain did see something small, however she did not reference the object to be a missile. The object she described flew over her vehicle and over the treeline, although it didn't disturb the trees or make any sound, and she didn't recall the sound of an explsoion, which I find strange. I am still open to the possibility that it could be a missile.
I have raised this several times with Steve during our comment exchanges on his website, however he seems reluctant to amend this in his articles or videos, even for the sake of accuracy, which I feel is a shame as it could be seen in a bad light and unhelpful for him, but I respect his choice not to.
For Steve De'ak to claim he can recreate the crater in Shanksville, he must first demonstrate that he has recreated enough of the observed features with some reasonable high degree of accuracy based on the observable evidence at Shankville crash site crater. This is NOT the case with any of Steve's comparison recreations or the comparison NASA lab experiments. He must recreate the crater showing a tail section impression and also an engine crater, preferably using videos and not photos, and also at the correct angles so we can see how it was achieved. He can also explain thoroughly how no treeline damage or disturbance to the trees adjacent to the crash crater in Shanksville was achieved. This has NOT been done up-to-now by Steve De'ak on all. On a final note. This is NOT a personal attack on Steve De'ak, I am hopeful he may adjust or add to his test experiments the information I provide here.
I am happy to update this article when Steve conducts new experiments and tests which solve the issues raised in this analysis. I am not saying he is promoting disinformation, as this would be unfair to say and unhelpful and an easy cheap shot, this, as he is trying find answers to how the crater was made. This sometimes can take several attempts to fully reach a sufficent answer or recreation in this case. I wish him well in future experiements.
Thanks for reading and caring.