It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

page: 59
24
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Give us the methodology of how they identified any alleged passengers by dental records. You brought it up. It is up to you to describe the methodology used. Otherwise, all you are relying on is hearsay.


I'm only quoting this...although I did laugh at the previous posts.

You would like the methodology? Hmmmmm.... well... the families of the victims supply the examiners with recent dental records. They take the remains (in the example teeth) that were found and compare them to the x-rays, and other records. ie: fillings, bridge work, crowns, etc.

Now as far as DNA goes, If there is hair, bones, marrow, etc. DNA strands can be found. This DNA is compared to personal belongings supplied by the victims family. ie: a tooth brush, hair brush, also blood samples from kin. I have already posted this.

Again Orion, I have posted contact information from ALL of the departments that were involved with identifying the remains. If you don't want to go on my "hearsay", then i urge you to get it from the horses mouth. I will guarentee you that you will not. One thing a thruther is afraid of..... the truth!




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
If they already knew it was a bomb, why put it back together at all? It is self-evident bombs explode other physical matter and send it flying in all directions.


That was my point with Lockerbie. If they already knew what caused it, they had no need to do that. They didn't know with TWA 800, and with UA 93, I can't see why they would do it either since they knew why it crashed. And if it was shot down, presumably there would be debris somewhere else.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


Please understand this. Commercial jetliners do not mechanically do mach 1, particularly at sea level, without starting to break up.

Swept back wings have little to do with it. It is nature, plus, mass, weight, design, and engine capability, which has almost everything, if not everything, to do with going mach 1 or not going mach 1. That includes free fall nose diving outside a vacuum. There is always heavy resistance outside a vacuum that pushes anything away, while the anything is being pulled toward vertical gravity.

The higher the altitude the less gravity and air pressure found, than is found at lower levels toward sea level. High altitude is where mach 1 is reached, for flying objects capable of reaching mach 1, not at sea level or near sea level.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Orion, how fast was flight 93 traveling prior to impact? What evidence can you share with us to back that up?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


How many families had to supply any x-rays for every alleged victiim on alleged Flight 93? At the very least, it depends on whether or not victims have this:

1. A dentist having done x-rays
2. DNA positive ID so the correct families are asked for those x-rays, if any exist.
3. How many full sets of teeth in bone they actually assert to have located. Partial remains do not positively ID. False teeth or bridges do not positively ID. False teeth never give positive ID.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


Apex,

When truthers bring up the silly argument about how the airliners used on 9/11 should break apart in midair at the speeds they were traveling, use TWA 841 to counter their argument.

The aircraft went into a spiral dive, losing about 34,000 feet in 63 seconds. (For comparison, a normal rate of descent for an airliner would be 1800 feet per minute). During the course of the dive, the plane rolled through 360 degrees twice, and crossed the Mach limit for the 727 airframe. It was later estimated from the flight data recorder that the plane was momentarily supersonic. Control was regained at about 5,000 feet, following the #7 slat being torn off from the aircraft and symmetry of lift being re-established. Wiki


Be warned. This will be the typical response from the truthers.

Truther will close his/her eyes as tightly as possible, plug both ears with his/her fingers and say:


La La La... Government source... La La La... Hearsay... La La La... Insufficient evidence... La La La... Valid physical evidence... La La La and then he/she will be back 10 minutes later saying that the aircraft used on 9/11 should have broken apart at the speeds they were flying.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Please understand this. Commercial jetliners do not mechanically do mach 1, particularly at sea level, without starting to break up.


By that I assume you mean as a whole, and fair enough, they don't. Or if they do, for a very short period of time. I assume in your definition then, Concorde wasn't a commercial jet.



Swept back wings have little to do with it. It is nature, plus, mass, weight, design,

So design doesn't include swept back wings? As you approach Mach 1 you encounter problems with air becoming incompressible, and the swept wings reduce these problems. The more they are swept back, you get problems with high takeoff and landing speeds, but you need the speed, so they get swept back. The efficiency of the Gas Turbine engines increases with design speed, so faster speeds are needed. There is a large drag increase before Mach 1, so you want to avoid that a reasonable amount, but the increase in efficiency off sets that.


High altitude is where mach 1 is reached, for flying objects capable of reaching mach 1, not at sea level or near sea level.


Maybe you should tell the pilot of this jet that. Sure it's an F/A 18, but I think you'll agree thats about as close to sea level you can get a plane.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by apex]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Bones? Do you believe DNA is taken from bones? Because it is not.

Marrow - yes, but only if not contaminated and handled very carefully by a geneticist or medical doctor versed in forensic science.

Hair - only full hair follicles down to the root contain DNA and only useful if not contaminated. That means it has to be properly handled and mixed with nothing else, which could contaminate it.

Then there is a heat factor consideration, which can completely destroy any capability of positive DNA ID.

The way your side has projected that alleged wreck as having happened, there would be no positive ID of DNA much less dental records.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


They normally always do that. It is SOP for any aircraft crashes. Why should 9/11 be any different?

Oh, that is right. Everything normal, including the laws of nature, were suspended, with the stroke of human manufactured pens, between the hours of 8:46 and 10:03 am on 9/11/2001. They resumed at 10:03:01 am on 9/11/2001.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion... You have no idea WHAT was recovered. You have no willingness to find out either. I post the information with back up and you ignore it calling it hearsay.

Why won't you call them? write them? You don't have to go at them with your "Truth Guns Blazzin." Ask them what was recovered, ask them how it was gathered, ask them what your asking me.

Stupid of me to even post this...you won't do it. You have not offered any evidence to support your theory. You keep doing the same song and dance and ignore what is right in front of your face. You are truly supporting what I say over and over....

911 Truth Movement
Ask Questions
Ignore Answers



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


I have no idea and neither do you.

It is all guesswork by anyone stating a figure, because there is no actual documentation to state how fast any alleged plane was going, before it started to allegedly nosedive.

Accurate starting speed at point of nosedive is highly important to know. That is why pilots mandatorily stay in touch with control centers to give them the readings, particularly when it looks as if they are going to start nosediving without stopping. That is why pilots also continue to give readings until the plane crashes. Keep in mind, the "official" reports state the transponders were shut down long prior to any crashing.

That is also the reason why, if the contol centers lose contact with planes, they say "last known", but that does not mean that is the fastest the plane was going when it started toward crash. That results in guesstimate, which may or may not be closer to accurate.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I don't think they always reconstruct crashed aircraft. If it's useful, then they would do it, but otherwise there would be no need. If there are good enough eyewitness accounts, the FDR and CVR are useful, and debris that is telling as a single piece, such as a failed pin (ie American 191), why go through the bother of reconstructing it?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


Concordes fly at mach 1 at sea level do they?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


Qualification - entire design. Is that better now? If you knew aerodynamics as well as you project you do in these discussions, I should not have had to qualify what I meant using the sole word design.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I have no idea? No sire, I do. You ignore the evidence and assume there was a conspiracy. The FDR was found. Do you know that? During the recovery, it was found. Yes... .and there was information obtained from it....and you know what it said? Do you care? Is this hearsay too??



Cabin pressure - NORMAL. Hydraulics - NORMAL. Cargo fire - NORMAL. Smoke - NORMAL. Engines - RUNNING. Engine RPM (N1) 70% . Fuel pressure - NORMAL. Engine vibration - LO. Wind direction - WEST. Wind speed - 25 kts. Pitch angle - 40 deg down. Airspeed - 500 kts. Heading - 180 deg. Roll angle - 150 deg right. AoA - 20 deg negative


Bolding mine. Do you know this FDR reading backs up the CVR, witness statements, AND phone calls to loved ones?

Do you care?

Will you dismiss this?

Keep ignoring the facts... they won't go away. Just I know your fantasy won't either.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

They normally always do that. It is SOP for any aircraft crashes. Why should 9/11 be any different?



Normally always? Link please.

Is this more speculation on your part, or can you back that up?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Neither do you. That makes us even. You are relying on hearsay, and I will not do that.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by apex
 


Qualification - entire design. Is that better now? If you knew aerodynamics as well as you project you do in these discussions, I should not have had to qualify what I meant using the sole word design.


And the entire design includes the wings, and their angle of sweep. If there was no need for transonic craft to have them swept, why would everyone bother with it? Most large airliners since the 707 (and including the 707) have had swept back wings. So why did you make a claim that swept wings have nothing to do with it?

reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


For those who don't like knots very much, thats 257.2m/s, or 843.9 fps. Also known as 0.7558 Mach.



[edit on 8-1-2008 by apex]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


If that is what you chose to believe, feel free. There are solid forensic reasons, particularly with commercial aircraft, they do reconstructions. Those reasons have little to nothing to do with what they think is the cause of the destruction of aircraft.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Who was reporting? It has to be reported by voice back to the control center and NORAD. You think the centers are able to get all those reading any other way? If so, how?




top topics



 
24
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join