It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Reheat - Hole in the Ground

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:52 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
Also note you are comparing a fighter jet which is designed to withstand missile strikes, uses special fuel to resist explosion and has less fuel on board. Futhermore, the fuel tanks are not in the wings of fighter jets.

Most of the weight in central to the fuselage to allow agile flight.

Originally posted by ReheatTrebor has correctly DESTROYED each and everyone of these statements. (Echo) You seriously do not know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by turbofan
Right, so the video is fake then?

The video has absolutely nothing at all to do with what you were proven wrong about. You just got caught using one of your deceptive tactics of evading responsibility for talking crap about something you know nothing about. If anything the video shows you were wrong, as well.

Originally posted by Reheat
An IR missile will go at the engine and a radar missile will most likely go to the fuselage.

Originally posted by turbofan
Mr. Reheat, please view the video of REAL life IR missiles hitting tips of
wings and tail sections.

One missile appears to hit the wing of a prop job of some kind. It's impossible to tell if it hits the tip of the wing or one of the engines.

In case you didn't know the tail section of an aircraft is where the engine(s) is/are on a fighter and ALL of those that appear to be tail shots were fighters.

Originally posted by turbofan
See, that's what a video does. It DESTROYS and exposes children with
keyboards with too much time on their hands. I call them "Netgineers".

No, what it actually does is allow the diversion you've attempted that actually shows you to be wrong. That's why you and pffft like them so much.

Originally posted by ReheatDestroy it how? Cause little bitty pieces to fall over an 8 mile radius?....hardly.

Originally posted by turbofan
Put up, or shut Mr. Reheat. You've been dodging questions for weeks.

Off-topic BS in order to sneak in an insulting comment.

Originally posted by turbofan
What's more liekly, an exploding aircraft at altitude raining parts over
8 miles, or a 24 knot wind that cannot move a smoke cloud?

Why would an exploding aircraft leave debris DOWNWIND?

The debris would be along the flight path and it would stretch for much further than 8 miles depending upon the altitude at which it exploded. It would also not be very light debris that was found. The NTSB is quoted as saying the debris blew downwind. Do you know more than the NTSB? (this is a favorite gem of a question used by pffft) The FDR proves you wrong too, as every system was shown to be operating normally at impact.

Originally posted by Reheat Sure, a A-A missile hitting a fuel tank on any aircraft is likely to produce an explosion. There will still be big pieces falling to the ground.

Originally posted by turbofan
Thank you for:

a. Contradicting yourself
b. Proving Trebor wrong
c. Proving me correct

Three false statements in one fell swoop. If you really think so, you simply don't understand at all. I'm not sure if you don't understand or are just simply lying. I'm not at all surprised either way.

Originally posted by turbofan
Big pieces can crash to the ground and break-up. Did we see 100% of the
video showing all of the 8 mile debris field? Probably not; but enough
to prove UA93 did not bury itself in hole.

Says the wanna be aircraft investigation expert. Big pieces may bend and get damaged and some may break up, but not to the extend of all of those little bitty pieces you ignore in some of the UA 93 photos. That only will happen when there is enough kinetic energy to cause that kind of breakup from a intact aircraft hitting the ground.

If it's not on video it doesn't exist. Yes, I understand how kids are about videos.

Originally posted by ReheatDescribe details of how a fighter is designed to resist destruction by a missile if the missile actually hits... Do you really know anything at all about aircraft construction?

Originally posted by turbofan
I'll have a few links to lend you.

By all means take your time!

Originally posted by turbofan
Please start a new thread and stop going off topic. Once again, you
are avoiding my questions in either thread.

Everything I've posted is in reply to your original post. If you consider it off-topic stop bringing it up.

Bringing up another thread is indeed off-topic. If there is a legitimate question in this thread I've overlooked, please repeat it and I'll have a look.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Reheat]

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:59 AM

Originally posted by rhunter
I still don't understand why trebor is going on about supersonic military fighters in the first place.

TF said this:

Originally posted by turbofan
Futhermore, the fuel tanks are not in the wings of fighter jets.

I was refuting a specific claim by turbofan that was grossly in error.

Dragging this back on topic (kicking and screaming, I'm sure), the submission is that when the full spectrum of data points are examined with regards to a possible "shoot down" of UA93, the data does not support that happening. More specifically, air to air missile capabilities (i.e. what they could do to a 7x7-class airliner) and the physical dynamics of the impact hole do not support the aircraft being shot down.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:47 AM
reply to post by rhunter

hunter, a B757 is not a "heavy", unless you're referring to a B757-300 series.....because the definition of "heavy" for ATC separation purposes is marked by a MGTOW of over 250,000 pounds.

OK, now to extemporalize a was shown that the B757 wingtip/wake vortices 'mimiced' "heavy" jets' (because, not hard to uderstand, the B757/767 is a common type rating, it was marketed by Boeing as a selling point. The two airplanes are almost identical, only need certain "differences" training to transition from one to the other...they feel about the same, from a pilot's standpoint. (And the view from the cockpit windows is just about identical, since this is important for low-visibility approaches...especially in Category III 'auto-land' scenarios)....Sorry, but this is why Transport Category airplanes require specific fact, for the US FAA, a 'type-rating' is required for any airplane with a maximum Gross take-off weight of over 12,500 pounds, or any turbo-jet powered airplane.

I am type rated on the DC-9/MD-80, the B737 and the B757/767. So, I know what I'm talking about. Not trying to lord over anyone else, but I have experience over the years, and knowledge from that experience. I also have a great deal of 'Flight Engineer' experience, on the B727 and DC-10....In fact, at my airline, back when I was just a kid....(twenty-eight)!!! I was 'Check Airman' for new hires, on the DC-10. (of course, this was over two decades ago....modern airplanes are now designed for two pilots....only need for another is due to stage length, and duty restrictions....which, I thoroughly applaud, BTW!!!)

Well....I've layed out my creds. At least, I've been as open and honest as I can, given the nature of the Internet.

I know that many others, here at ATS, bring certain credentials, as well. It is really about trying to focus on our similarities, rather than our differences of opinion, when we discuss. I think, in fact, truly believe, that THIS was the point, of the "Three Amigos" intent, when they formed this site.

I am sorry if this seems to have gone off-topic. What is becoming evident, to me, is that writing is a rapidly fading art....and, actually, being able to express oneself, through the written word, is, ironically, becoming more important in the Internet Age (I just coined that term....'Internet Age'....actually, I think it belongs to someone else....darn it!!!)

Trying to weave a sentence to get back to topic, whilst ranting at the same time.....9/11???? Too many voices, get in the way. Some 'chime' in, and just parrot stuff they've seen. It is mostly nonsense.

ATS is full, not what You were thinking I was about to write!!! ATS is populated by enquiring minds. It is what makes this site so great!!! (I used, originally....a French term. Didn't think it would 'read' well...)

So, back to topic....I truly can believe the 9/11 story, at least as it relates to the UAL93 event. I am sorry that certain people wish to read, and comment, on the event, and try to diminish the reality. I mean, really, IF you could travel to the USA and speak, directly, with the people who lost their loved ones, perhaps you'd change.

Have I done this?? Well, you may ask, and I will answer,

I did not need to. I live in the area. My home (now sold, at a wonderful price...was formerly at 315 N. Garfield St, Arlington, VA 22201)

PS....the new owners....oh my, they seriously ruined it, so please, don't judge me...THEY did it!!!!

You may feel free to Google it.....was quite near the Pentagon, as you will no doubt see.

Please, do not disturb my neighbors....they are still freinds.

SO....I have creds, I fly. I was living in the area of the Pentagon attack, on the date of September 11, 2001. I seem to be the ONLY ONE on ATS who is bothering to post, with personal knowledge and experience.

so, for ATC separation purposes, a B757 requires the five-mile standard, "in-trail", in the ATC parlance, rather than the 3-mile standard for non-heavy jets. Of course, at higher altitudes and speeds, ten-mile horizontal is still standard in a RADAR environment. Or, in non-RADAR....ten minutes...which, at about 60-80 miles, depending on groundspeed.

OK....having said that, we must now understand how an airplane can be tracked, once the transponder and the DATA block is lost. 'Coast' mode is designed, by the software in the ATC system, to alert the controller that the transponder is no longer transmitting.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Thank you weedwhacker.

Operating empty with P&W engines 57,840kg (127,520lb), with RB211s 57,975kg (127,810lb). Basic max takeoff 99,790kg (220,000lb), medium range MTOW 108,860kg (240,000lb), extended range MTOW 115,665kg (255,000lb) or 115,895kg (255,550lb).

Boeing 757-200

Now is 10,000 lbs (or -5,550 lbs
) a matter of exceeding importance when discussing machinery in the 240,000 lb range? Perhaps, but that Boeing 757-200 will go over 250,000 lbs. MTOW in some variants.

One of my points was that for an F-14 Tomcat, MTOW ~70,500 lbs.
F-14 specs

F-16A Falcon MTOW ~33,000 lbs.
F-16 specs

F-15 Eagle MTOW ~56,000 lbs.
F-15 specs

F-22 Raptor MTOW ~55,000 lbs.
F-22 specs

Now does anyone really think the maximum speeds or G-load envelopes even compare to "civilian" Boeing transport category aircraft with this list? Thrust probably isn't comparable here either, but I didn't look that up. The point was "Boeings to Boeings" (in the commercial, not the military context- although it is actually a little difficult to tell where the Boeing part begins and the Lockheed part ends on things like F-22 Raptor).

Another point was mid-air breakup of Boeing transport category aircraft (of which TWA 800 is the most conspicuous example that I am aware of, and a 747 will definitely go "heavy.")

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 10:30 PM

Originally posted by ReheatThe video has absolutely nothing at all to do with what you were proven wrong about. You just got caught using one of your deceptive tactics of evading responsibility for talking crap about something you know nothing about. If anything the video shows you were wrong, as well.

Oh no, you figured me out! I'm not a fighter jet engineer. My cover is
blown! How could Turbofan have mistaken fuel tanks in the wings with
fuel tanks in the fuselage section!?

Many years ago, before your government planned 9/11 I read up and
watched documentaries on fighter jets, and even picked up a book or
two. Some of the discussion revolved around jet fuel sloshing around
in the wings of older generation jets causing issues with maneuverability.

The solution for this was using external fuel tanks and reducing the
amount of area used in the wings. You can pick up books like:
"F-15 Eagle Engaged" , by Steve Davies, and Doug Dildy which further
discuss these points if you like.

As I have already admitted to my general error, we can let this go
or you can start another thread like I asked to prevent further

Originally posted by turbofan
See, that's what a video does. It DESTROYS and exposes children with
keyboards with too much time on their hands. I call them "Netgineers".

Why would an exploding aircraft leave debris DOWNWIND?

Mass? Momentum?

Why did the smoke cloud not drift in the direction of wind Mr. Reheat?
What is more likely to get blown around by the wind?

Says the wanna be aircraft investigation expert.

You are in no position to prove otherwise, "Mr. Reheat". You can't
even explain how a 757 can bury itself into the ground, or have
pieces carried away by the 24 knot wind.

Nobody here has shown an ounce of proof/logic to show UA93 crashed
in the crater and then disappear.

Your best THEORY doesn't even make sense. Good job.

UA93 either landed, or was shot down. It did not crash in the tiny little

Something was shot down. The 8 mile debris field proves it.

Reporters and witnesses were on the scene within minutes of the
impact. Please do the math and tell me how far your 11/24 knot
wind is going to blow these pieces in 10 minutes?

Please tell me the direction of wind that day, and the location of the
debris in relation to the crater.

Good luck making everyone here believe your fairy tale.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by turbofan]

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:25 PM
reply to post by rhunter

Not sure WHY you are 'thanking' me.....

Frankly, the data you provided isn't really relevant.

The fighters....while interesting....weren't deployed, on that day. As far as I know...

So what was your point?????

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:42 AM
Still waiting for an answer on the wind direction, and 'magical smoke'
Mr. Reheat.

I have also noticed you have not taken me up on starting a thread about
fuel tank design in combat fighters.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:04 PM
reply to post by turbofan

Because the fireball that rises up is hotter than the surrounding air, which allows for it to have more vertical motion than lateral motion by the wind, until the fireball and smoke cool down enough to where it can then be carried away. Like a mushroom cloud. Why doesnt the cloud immediately get blown away as its rising? The high temps. Hot air rises. Simple. And the light debris (ie fabrics, papers, cloth, shreds) will get carried up into the fireball and rising smoke, from which it then can be carried by the winds to a farther distance. Simple really.

Geeze, do you ever do any research turbo? Because stuff like this is pretty common sense.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:19 PM

Originally posted by turbofan
I have also noticed you have not taken me up on starting a thread about
fuel tank design in combat fighters.

Butting in on an invite to Reheat....

But you go ahead and start that thread, there, TF. That way you can tell everyone how the F-4 and the F-8 and the F-14 and the F-15 and the F-16 and the YF-17 which became the F-18 and the F-22 and the F-35 and the SU-27 and the MiG 29 all don't have wing fuel tanks when each and every one of them do have wing fuel tanks.

After all, wasn't it you, in this thread, that stated fighter aircraft do not have wing fuel tanks?

[edit on 3-6-2009 by trebor451]

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by trebor451

Hey Trebor, how dare you harass Turbo for abandoning threads for which he has no legitimate answer.

The only argument he knows is one of "personal incredulity" just as he's used in this thread about the "smoking hole" of UA 93.

This all started when he had no answer to the demolished thread about UA 93 being airborne after the reputed crash time. He made concerted efforts to derail that thread and change the subject, so and that lead to this "call out" thread for which he thought he could prolong the obfuscation.

His only knowledge about these subject is what he can "google", so it's a waste of time to ask him to start a thread about Fighter Aircraft. He only admitted to the fuel tank error, but not the other declarations that were also in error. He won't dare touch this and start a new thread about the fuel tanks, the built in shield for air to air missiles for fighters, the special "missile resistant" fuel they use, or any other claim he's made about fighters. He has no knowledge whatsoever about any of these subjects and he's proven it. All any additional threads would produce is more of the same....

[edit on 4-6-2009 by Reheat]

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by Reheat

If that makes you sleep at night after dodging the two questions I have
put forth, then just keep pushing that theory.

i already told you (as if it wasn't obvious) that I'm not an aircraft
engineer, or combat pilot.

Good for you, you busted me! I get my jet fighter info from TV shows, books, and the internet.

If you read back a few posts there is a reference to a book which
discusses fuel tank design for fighter jets. feel free to read it, and note
the complications with fuel sloshing around in the wings far out from the
center of gravity. You should understand inertia of a fluid moving to
the outer extreme of a wing as the jet wants to roll side to side.

But anyway, I'm not going to lose sleep for something like this.

Have fun dodging my smoke question and UA93 question.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:55 AM
reply to post by turbofan

Oh turbo!
Your question has already been answered. Did you not see it?
I'm pretty sure he didnt bother answering you because the fact is that even if he were to answer it correctly, you still wouldnt believe it and act all incredulous and such. So I decided to take the liberty of answering it for you.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 12:25 PM
I would like to ask Mr. Reheat and others the the following question:

1. Where are the wing spars and tail section after they made the indentation into the ground?

They were a solid mass of course or they don't make the imprint, therefore we should be seeing nice sized pieces of debris within those indentations right?

1. Did they dig in and stay?

2. Did they dig in, fall apart and stay?

3. Did they dig in and then bounce back out and scatter?

I posted those questions pages ago with no response.

.............With regards to missiles and Boeing..........of topic of course but...

1. All it would take is a strategic strike to a critical component of the plane to bring it down. Stating it didn't happen based upon past examples is a fallacy.
If you choose to use this line of logic, I can state with a fact that the crash scene in NO WAY resembles any past high speed impact into the ground as I posted one earlier in this thread which was ignored of course.

Many people seem to be ignoring the eyewitness testimony aboard the plane that lead people to believe it was shot down OR there was a bomb on board.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION b6 b7C Datc of transcription 09/1 9/2 001-Q\During the conversation he heard between the ~ale caller and
the male caller did not indicate whether he was located in the
front or rear bathroom of the aircraft nor did he say anything about
the number of hijackers on board the flight, their race, or their sex.
The caller made no statements regarding any weapons that the
hijackers) had in their possession and made no statement regarding any
bombs other than the fact that he had heard some sort of explosion
aboard the aircraft. The male caller also stated that
there was white smoke somewhere on the plane.Source: FBI

1. Who ran security at the airport where this plane departed?

Smoke Plume-
1. Where are all the debris that would be blown 8 miles away in this photographPicture of Plume assuming the photograph is real?

There is absolutely nothing in that cloud that resembles debris. Not above, in, or beside it to be blown away.

FDR- a bit off topic-if you accept the FDR as a legitimate piece of evidence in the case of 93, then you realize the Pentagon FDR must also be correct, placing that plane to high to hit the lightpoles and the Pentagon.

FAA/ATC-the faa recorded an altitude for the alleged 93 of 8200 feet 3 miles southeast past the crash site because the transponder was turned back on over Indian lake. This corresponds correctly to people who viewed the plane past the crash site.

United 93 transponder is recognized by Air Traffic Control as airborne after alleged impact time. Some have made the excuse this is due to Coast Mode tracking. ATC did not recognize any signs of CST (Coast Mode). Further confirmation that this was not any type of "Coast Mode" is that ATC also recognized United 93 reporting an altitude. The only way ATC could observe a reported altitude is if United 93 were squawking Mode C on the transponder, which means altitude reporting capability. Further confirmation comes in the form of latitude and longitude positions reported by ATC. N39 51 - W78 46 were reported as the last known radar position of United 93. It is unclear if the position is reported as Degrees, Minutes or Decimal, however, standard aviation terminology is in Degrees, Minutes. With that said, both positions are well past the alleged United 93 Crash site.According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Flight Path Study, United 93 allegedly impacted the ground at 10:03am, September 11, 2001. The following transcript excerpts are provided by the Federal Aviation Administration. It is a conversation between Air Traffic Control System Command Center - East, Management Officers (ntmo-e) and other various facilities. The conversation is as follows in real time:

1405 (10:05 a.m.)

ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet

doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred

ntmo-e: southeastbound still

doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him

ntmo-e: correct

doug: ok buddy


ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three
doug: all right


ntmo-e: sixteen south of Johnstown where they lost united ninety three and it was heading turning one four zero heading

doug: which will put him to what do you think

ntmo-e: uh I guess that put him down coming right just west of Dulles

doug: ok

ntmo-e: if he stays on that heading of course

doug: how we doing John with getting stuff on the ground

ntmo-e: uh we're they 're not they 're still going to their original destinations if you look at TSD you'll see that the eastern part of the unites states is thinning out

doug: ok

ntmo-e: uh you know airports like dulles uh new york there we have no aircraft going into there

doug: ok


ntmo-e: ok uh there is now on the on united ninety three

doug: yes

ntmo-e: there is now a report of black smoke in the last position I gave you fifteen miles of Johnstown

doug: from the airplane or from the ground

ntmo-e: uh they're speculating it's from the aircraft

doug: ok bud

ntmo-e: uh who hit the ground that's what they're speculation it's speculation only

doug: ok


doug: hey john

ntmo-e: yes

doug: do we have anything on delta nineteen eighty nine is she still heading to cleveland?

ntmo-e: delta nineteen eighty nine was returning to Cleveland and they were no longer treating it like a hijacked aircraft

doug: ok

ntmo-e: I don't know if he's landed ok; the last position of united I'm going to give some coordinates united ninety three

doug: yes

ntmo-e: three nine five one north zero seven eight four six west

doug: zero seven eight four six

ntmo-e: west

doug: west

doug: all right

ntmo-e: you got the thirty nine fifty one north

doug: ya thirty nine fifty one north zero seven eighty four six west

ntmo-e: that's the last known position of united ninety three

Now what made that hole again?

What produced a pristine bandanna at the crime scene?

Keep in mind the environmental testing of the site shows NO contamination from jet fuel either.

Everything, including the scene and eyewitnesses, point to something other than the official story being true at Shanksville.

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 12:23 AM
ok, if you hit water from a large drop, it is like hitting cement

you squash on impact with the surface

so, how could something go through a solid(dirt) like butter when simple water acts like concrete in this situation?

it seems to me even if the dirt were sand, it would still obliterate on impact and scatter wildly with only a few pieces actually submerging no more than a few feet into the sand

but this isnt sand,its actual dirt

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 12:28 AM
and i quote

" Consider a diver who
jumps off a high diving board (it is a 10 meter board or platform if I
recall correctly). A good diver enters the water almost without a splash.
However, an inexperienced diver who does a "belly flop" is going to get a
pretty hard jolt. The difference is due to the fact that it takes a finite amount of time for the water in the path of the diver to move out of the way of the diver and the water the diver displaces as she/he enters the water. If the water cannot "get out of the way" it begins to behave as though it were a solid. At 10 meters this depends upon the technique of
the diver. If the speed of the diver at the instant of entry becomes greater (as his/her altitude becomes greater) the less time the water has to "get out of the way" as the diver hits the water. If the water cannot be displaced, it begins to behave as though it were a solid.The same
principles also apply if the fluid is a gas. At sufficiently high speed,
if a person jumps from an airplane even the air cannot "get out of the
way" and it is almost as though the air was "solid". This is the reason
that pilots in military aircraft flying at high speeds (e.g. greater than
the speed of sound) have to be in a protective shell. At those high speeds
even air behaves like a wall. This is also why reentry vehicles from orbit
have to skip along the atmosphere to slow down. If they do not do so the
vehicle would "crash" long before it hit solid ground."


posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 11:58 PM

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by turbofan

Because the fireball that rises up is hotter than the surrounding air, which allows for it to have more vertical motion than lateral motion by the wind, until the fireball and smoke cool down enough to where it can then be carried away. Like a mushroom cloud. Why doesnt the cloud immediately get blown away as its rising? The high temps. Hot air rises. Simple. And the light debris (ie fabrics, papers, cloth, shreds) will get carried up into the fireball and rising smoke, from which it then can be carried by the winds to a farther distance. Simple really.

Geeze, do you ever do any research turbo? Because stuff like this is pretty common sense.

Sorry I missed this one; I've been away!

I think these videos of actual jet fuel fire should pretty much put your
theory to rest:

I could provide several more links of fires burning, and smoke rising
while being blown all around...but naaaa, these couple and the photo
will do just fine.

Also note the differences between real jet fuel fires and that picture
at Shanksville.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 02:05 PM
The four aircraft involved in 911 had tail surfaces covered with carbon fiber skins, not aluminum. Other than the white stripe, all objects in the photo below that are painted white are made of composite materials.

From Janes ATWA Boeing 767 descripton:

Aluminium alloy two-spar fail-safe wing box; centre-section continuous through fuselage; ailerons, flaps and spoilers extensively of honeycomb, graphite composites and laminates; tailplane has full-span light alloy torque boxes; fin has three-spar, dual-cell light alloy torque box; elevators and rudder have graphite/epoxy honeycomb skins supported by honeycomb and laminated spar and rib assemblies; CFRP wing/fuselage and flap track fairings. All landing gear doors of CFRP/Kevlar.

Unlike aluminum, which bends, carbon fiber shatters into small pieces upon impact. The resin in the carbon fiber is flammable. When ignited, the resin will burn away, leaving the carbon cloth.

See last page of Boeing Fire Manual below:

When UA175's tailfin struck the South Tower, it shattered and left a mark (visible in photos on this thread). The shattered pieces were engulfed in the fireball and drifted away with the wind.

When UA93's tailfin impacted the ground, it also shattered and left a mark. The shattered pieces were carried aloft in the mushroom cloud and drifted downwind, scattering carborn fragments from the crash site to Indian Lake.

If you're searching for pieces of UA93's tail, this is what you should be looking for.

Descriptions of the carbon fiber and honeycomb appear in numerous witness statesments and are misidentified due to lack of knowledge. In other words, they simply had no idea what they were looking at and made their best guess.

Investigators crawled through the debris field, bagging bolts and bone fragments. They found chunks of seat cushion foam and honeycombed sound insulators. Then a shoelace, some shirt buttons, and a wedding ring.

Below is a perfect description carbon fiber cloth; she just has the burnt and unburnt reversed.

And there was some black webbing -- a lot of people found that," she said. The webbing, flexible where it hadn't burned, crisp where it had, was from insulation lining the belly of the jetliner.

Hope this helps,

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:07 AM
reply to post by waypastvne

So you're thinking the tail section parts burned up on impact, exploded up
into the cloud of smoke and got blown away with the cloud?

Conflicting theories with some of the others.

Can you tell me the direction of wind that day?

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 10:58 AM
reply to post by turbofan

You know turbo, its really sad how you cant even begin to comprehend basic physics or even something simple like how a fireball works. I mean seriously, do I have to have sock puppets come out and explain it?

The original picture of the black cloud is right AFTER the impact, when the fireball has just risen to its maximum height. Do you know how fireballs work turbo? The plane impacts the ground, explodes, and the resulting fireball rises up regardless of surrounding winds, until the heat energy of the fireball dissipates enough to be allowed to be carried by the winds.

This was not a simple fuel fire burning in a building or tanker truck. How about showing a fireball and the mushroom cloud rising first? Better yet a plane crash with a fireball!

You see how the fireball rises up high above? winds dont affect much on the way up. The photos taken of the crash was literally moments after the crash occurred. You can see the mushroom cloud still there.

So no, turbo, your comparison to burning fuel trucks and such is of no use here. Had you posted the initial fireball of an exploding tanker truck/plane/fuel storage tank you may have been onto something. but yet again your inexperience has shown through.
And its quite sad how your cheerleaders star you like you know what you are talking about, when in reality you have no clue.

(Edit: fix link)

[edit on 6/17/2009 by GenRadek]

[edit on 6/17/2009 by GenRadek]

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:15 AM
reply to post by turbofan

Turbo, turbo, turbo.

Do you ever pay attention at all? Or do you just selectively pick and chose random things and then twist them up?

who said anything about tail sections getting picked up by the fireball?

Apparently you are having some serious difficulties in reading comprehension here. Let me help you straighten this out.

First off, the debris that was found a distance away was said to be light debris. Now light debris in a plane crash usually refers to paper, insulation, cloth, shreds of clothing, magazines, basically anything that can be swept up into the fireball and carried by winds. Note this does not mean solid pieces of metal or large sections of aircraft or engines. An engine or a large chunk of aircraft cannot be sucked into a fireball from a plane crash and carried for miles. Sure it can bounce or get buried, but thats another topic.

The LIGHT debris (ie material, papers, cloths, shredded aluminum light enough to be picked up and carried, insulation, nylon, etc) then gets carried up and blown with the wind. You see the fireball was the mechanism for this LIGHT debris to be picked up, and the wind the mechanism that carried the LIGHT debris to its location where it was discovered by crash scene investigators. And they discovered there LIGHT debris, right where it would be according to the winds that were blowing at the moment of impact and the fireball. They did not find any large chunks of aircraft there, only LIGHT debris.

So now that we have cleared this up you can refrain from this trolling method and move on. Its been explained time and again.

What debris was found?

Also turbo, a plane being shot down does not, I repeat, does NOT make little itty bitty shards of aircraft to rain down or leave behind itty bitty shards of plane everywhere. A plane fully intact, ramming straight down will, but not a plane that breaks up in mid air. Thats another physics lesson you must have missed.

[edit on 6/17/2009 by GenRadek]

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in