Does anyone have pictures of the flight 93 crash? Do any exist?

Lanton,

Once again, you're proving your inability to read. dg never said she was a pilot and contrary to your argumentative question she stated:

I do know something about airplanes, if seating arrangements make me an expert.
I doubt it.

Stop acting like a jerk. dg has the right to ask questions and speculate.

By the way - what are your credentials concerning airframe stability, construction and accident investigation? I'm assuming if you are implying dg can't talk about this topic because she isn't an expert in it, you'll step back from the topic yourself if you're not.

Originally posted by airtrax007
I do believe this plane was shot down because of the so called scattered wreackage . The piece with the windows that was shown above is a prime example of this theory. If it just crashed this piece would have been found many feet below the surface,infact most of the wreackage would be concentrated in one spot. Showing pieces that are scattered all over the place for MILES is a sure sign of an explosion befor final impact.

You an aircrash investigator too? Or is that just layman's knowledge of the mechanics of air crashes that you're relying on?

Originally posted by airtrax007
I do believe this plane was shot down because of the so called scattered wreackage . The piece with the windows that was shown above is a prime example of this theory. If it just crashed this piece would have been found many feet below the surface,infact most of the wreackage would be concentrated in one spot. Showing pieces that are scattered all over the place for MILES is a sure sign of an explosion befor final impact.

It may have been shot down, but even in a nosedive crash you're going to have SOME wreckage outside the impact crater. Even if it's just small pieces, the explosion at impact will throw SOME pieces out of the crater.

Lantom,

Did i say i was a "Pilot"? No.

Vall, i'm beginning to understand. Thank you for the explanation. I just wanted some intelligent answers and you and magic came thru for me.

Originally posted by Valhall
Lanton,

Once again, you're proving your inability to read. dg never said she was a pilot and contrary to your argumentative question she stated:

I do know something about airplanes, if seating arrangements make me an expert.
I doubt it.

Stop acting like a jerk. dg has the right to ask questions and speculate.

By the way - what are your credentials concerning airframe stability, construction and accident investigation? I'm assuming if you are implying dg can't talk about this topic because she isn't an expert in it, you'll step back from the topic yourself if you're not.

What, exactly, is wrong with questioning someone's knowledge on the matters they're discussing (or claims they're making)?

Personally, I do not have any intimate knowledge of the mechanics of airframe stability, construction and accident investigation, and neither, i'm guessing, do you. Nor for that matter do any of ATS's forum members or the most notable exponents of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Just because someone's seen a couple 'Air Crash Investigation' episodes on NatGeo, or did physics at school or even at the postgraduate level doesn't really qualify them as an expert of the mechanics of aircrashes, now does it?

Ok i'm done with this thread ,i think we all feel the same about the trolling clown. I hope i contributed to this thread with the knowledge i have on aircraft,sorry i;m not a investigator just a plane mechanic.


thanks

www.rcfp.org...
You wil lfind what you are looking for here.

regards,

Kerwin.

airtrax,

If you'll look at the pics of the impact crater again you'll see that even though the plane went in the ground at a near vertical angle of attack, it wasn't completely vertical which necessitates a forward movement (i.e. lateral movement to the ground). So there would be debris along a forward path from the impact crater that would most likely kind of fan out as you move away from the crater. One of the pics shows some little spots of smoking stuff coming up from the trees...that would most likely be the debris that tore away on impact and continued moving forward.

Here is the pic I'm referring to...note the smoke puffs to the left in the trees - that area appears to be along the ground motion vector of the plane.

Originally posted by Lanton
What, exactly, is wrong with questioning someone's knowledge on the matters they're discussing (or claims they're making)?

Personally, I do not have any intimate knowledge of the mechanics of airframe stability, construction and accident investigation, and neither, i'm guessing, do you. Nor for that matter do any of ATS's forum members or the most notable exponents of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Just because someone's seen a couple 'Air Crash Investigation' episodes on NatGeo, or did physics at school or even at the postgraduate level doesn't really qualify them as an expert of the mechanics of aircrashes, now does it?

Sure you have the right to question, but what gives you the right to start jumping all over people, and slamming them for asking questions? We might not be licensed crash investigators, but NEITHER ARE YOU, so how does that make you know more than they do? I'm not a crash investigators, but I've seen several of them as they happened, and been to crash sites, and see how they went into the ground, and read accident reports, etc. I don't claim to be an expert, and I know I'm not even CLOSE to an expert, but does that mean I don't have any clue what I'm talking about? No. Just as you have the right to question her, Dg has the right to question what happened to the plane, and where the wreckage is, WITHOUT people coming in and attacking.

[edit on 4/13/2006 by Zaphod58]

val,

I understand your theory ,but the crater is just not big enough to explain the CRASH THEORY.With all that fuel and an intact aircraft at the point of contact with the ground that crater would be huge ,and the trees that are in the picture would be gone, vaporised along with all the grass that is still visible .

Originally posted by airtrax007
val,

I understand your theory ,but the crater is just not big enough to explain the CRASH THEORY.With all that fuel and an intact aircraft at the point of contact with the ground that crater would be huge ,and the trees that are in the picture would be gone, vaporised along with all the grass that is still visible .

Any supporting evidence to back up that claim; e.g. scientific studies? Or are you just thinking 'well that was a big plane, full of fuel, that must've hit the ground pretty hard...so the resulting ignition of the aviation fuel must've burned down, at the very least, a couple of acres of woodland'?

Originally posted by airtrax007
val,

I understand your theory ,but the crater is just not big enough to explain the CRASH THEORY.With all that fuel and an intact aircraft at the point of contact with the ground that crater would be huge ,and the trees that are in the picture would be gone, vaporised along with all the grass that is still visible .

Actually, you would have a more powerful explosion if there was LESS fuel onboard. The emptier the tanks, the move vapor. And Jet A-1 vapor is nasty when it blows. They showed a video during the TWA 800 investigation, where they built a fuel tank mockup, filled it with a few gallons of fuel, and let the vapor build. It blew one end of the tank completely out and a huge jet of fire came shooting out.

Flight 93 being shot down is the ONLY thing i believe is being covered up on 9/11. That said, theres not going to be a huge hole anyways. The majority of the fuselage is hollow. This is not a depleted uranium cased bunker buster with high yield explosives to create a large crater.

Its an aluminum tube.

Train

Originally posted by BigTrain
Flight 93 being shot down is the ONLY thing i believe is being covered up on 9/11. That said, theres not going to be a huge hole anyways. The majority of the fuselage is hollow. This is not a depleted uranium cased bunker buster with high yield explosives to create a large crater.

Its an aluminum tube.

Train

Who shot down the Flight then, and why?

Originally posted by Lanton

Who shot down the Flight then, and why?

Not the subject of this thread. There is another thread that question is applicable to, and you know that. Why don't you ask it over there (where it's already been discussed but I guess some one could go over it again for you, if you wish.)

Same user, same argumentative (trolling) behavior. I'm glad to see that Lanton has at least earned a 'warn' for himself/herself.

To the topic at hand, I have to agree that (from a non-expert's point-of-view), it seems as if there should be a larger crater and more debris scattered around the immediate point of impact. However, since I'm not an expert, I guess I shouldn't have an opinion or ask questions...oh well

There was a member in another thread, I can't remember which though, that had been on accident investigations for the military. He went to the crash site of an A-6 Intruder that had gone straight in. He said they were amazed because the engines were found something like 3-5 feet down, and they had been compressed to less than three feet in length. Those are like 5 or 6 foot long engines, or more. Now if the heaviest and densest part of the plane does that when it goes straight in, how much worse do you think it's going to be for a MUCH heavier plane, travelling at a higher rate of speed, doing the same thing?

Didnt TWA 800 (half the plane) go straight into the ocean at a high rate of speed and they recovered and "rebuilt" damn near the whole plane?

No. TWA 800 exploded and broke apart in midair, THEN impacted the water.

Originally posted by harddrive21
Didnt TWA 800 (half the plane) go straight into the ocean at a high rate of speed and they recovered and "rebuilt" damn near the whole plane?

Even if it did, where have u been? If you think water has the same resistance and density as the earths crust, well then, god help you.

Train