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.

 

Reheat - Hole in the Ground

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
You are claiming the light weight debris that was found 8 miles away was within minutes. I claimed no such thing.


Why do you like to waste my time? Where is the trouble here?

How can you relate an 8 mile debris field as a result of UA93 impact
with an 8 mile debris field which was blown around by wind?

Please tell me what I'm missing...

Have you even compared the crash site photos between the two flights?

Look at the concentration of debris in either case.

Don't make me link photos to prove a point; i'd hate to waste more time
on this trivial and simple fact.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by turbofan]




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I sometimes wonder why I post in Pilots 4 911 Truth / No Planer threads.



No need to wonder.

The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear.
-Jiddu Krishnamurti

mull over that for a while wise guy.



[edit on 5/15/2009 by JPhish]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



I've seen all kind of off topic rants...


Yes, from you and Preston!! In fact, you just did in in this post!!!


while weedwhacker accepts a photo at face value, without any chain of custody...


Ah, the old ad hom again. What part of my ridiculing Preston's claim of a picture from "Italy" (an off-topic rant of a picture, BTW) could in any way, shape or form be inferred to be 'accepting at face value'???? Besides, you just shot your dear friend Preston in the foot, there...because HE obviously 'accepts' it, because he uses it in his posts, yet admits (claims) there is no source except an anonymous poster from Italy. Uh Huh...yeah, nice job there. More twisting of stories, deeper one gets.

IF the 'no-planers' insist on continuing to behave in such a reprehensible manner, then they will never achieve the credibility they so desperately crave....

PS....I find it infinitely amusing how all of you continue to parrot the same tired old 'talking points'....dutifully. "...the 90 ton Boeing...", for instance. Priceless, always makes me smile. (Maybe an Aussie won't know why, IF he's even a pilot...)



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
PS....I find it infinitely amusing how all of you continue to parrot the same tired old 'talking points'....dutifully. "...the 90 ton Boeing...", for instance. Priceless, always makes me smile. (Maybe an Aussie won't know why, IF he's even a pilot...)

I find it even more amusing that 'wanna-be soil engineers' claim that parts were found buried tens of feet under the 'soft', 'porous' dirt. All without proof, of course.

Each to their own, weedwhacker.

Hey, I'm glad you're smiling. It's the least that I can do for you before I head off to bed. Maybe there's some of the old weedwhacker returning again...



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Nicely dodged, mostly. Still ignoring anything anyone brings to a discussion, whilst claiming that only you and your like-minded friends have a monopoly on "critical logical thinking"!!!



Well I guess I should have included maintenance repair numbers with serial numbers. Don't they slap a sticker on fuselage parts when they replace them for damage or cracking and keep a record for the FAA? Those look like standard replaceable panels. Wouldn't there be serial numbers on standard parts?


Well, at least you're trying to ask an intelligent question, but these three sentences indicate to me that you lack practical knowledge about airplanes and maintenance procedures. This is what happens when laymen attempt to wrap their minds around subjects they have no expertise in.

Your high res photo 'mystery part'??? It's likely only a mystery to you.

NO, they do not "slap a sticker" on fuselage parts, as you are asking. NO, they are not 'standard replaceable panels'! You likely have no idea how the fuselage is constructed, do you?

Then, you asked about S/Ns on 'standard parts'. NO, an item may have a Part number, but that is for inventory tracking from maintenance stores, and verification that it is the correct widget that replaces the old widget. For example, EVERY screw and bolt has a P/N, but they don't have S/Ns!! Imagine, the very notion, how ridiculous that would be. Components that are time-limited, and are required to be changed out at regular maintenance intervals sometimes will have a S/N, but not always. Depends on the part.

Avionics and other electronic components have S/Ns, primarily because IF they fail, it can be tracked back to the manufacturer (just as your DVD player has a S/N that you use for warranty claims). Also, if you replace, say, a flight control computer module on a jet that was originally built in 1988 then the replacement unit has to be compatible...minor software changes happen all the time, the manufacturer of the unit issues bulletins to the users specifying which S/N range fits which version of the airplane (BTW, every airliner customer has 'options' specific to his version). For instance, the EICAS unit on a B757 with Rolls Royce engines is different than one for a B757 with P/W engines. Sorry if it's complicated...but that's how it is.

Speaking of electronics....and we are discussing UAL93 now, because THAT is the intent of this thread, correct? Have you seen any of the FDR data published by the NTSB? Before you answer, keep in mind that for decades the B757 has been equipped with an SSFDR. No moving parts, all 'Solid State' memory cards, all digital. AND they hold about 25 hours recording capacity, an abilty to 'look back'. These things record hundreds of parameters...not just altitude, heading and airspeed, but just about every little detail you can imagine can be recorded electronically. Imagine the daunting task of trying to 'fake' all of those little bits and bytes...maybe a very amazing guy who can speak binary???

Since I asked if you've seen the SSFDR readouts, here, I found a link:

www.gwu.edu...

It's large, 6.4 MB



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by Killtown7
 


Star for you!




I guess they dug down pretty deep to find that bandana clean as a whistle
no less!

Maybe they used "Clorox", or "Downy" to get all the dirt out before putting it inside
the plastic baggie? I couldn't get my clothes that clean if my life
depended on it.

So...we have 'proof' of UA93 by recovering a bandana worn by a
terrorist , located in the cockpit.....WAY down in the hole...BUT...
not a single seat, or fabric like Killtown suggests?

How nice of the FBI to prove the existence of UA93 by releasing photos
of head wear, as opposed to seats, landing gear, rims, etc.





I love this thread almost as much as the Taxi Cab challenge, but nobody
wants to play there.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by turbofan]


Every bone in my body tells me to stay out of this dog/cat fight.

I have been one of those Americans that have refused to look to close at what is in the fruitcake. We know that there is lot of stuff in it and we know that most of it is stuff we can't identify. So we just accept that it is okay because we have to trust the people that made it.

We either like it and eat the fruitcake anyway or we don't like it and either give the fruitcake to someone else or throw it away entirely.

Visiting the forums here at ATS and a few other places on this matter is really making the ingredients of the fruitcake less and less appealing.

In fact the ingredients are starting to look almost more than unnatural they are starting to look artificial.

I have avoided making a call on this but some things that I am finding out are starting to push me off the fence. I admit that I am am hanging ferociously to the fence because it will not be soft landing no matter which side I fall on.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Why do you like to waste my time?


Waste your time? You post nothing of substance. You say "you're wrong" and think that your word is gospel.



Where is the trouble here?


The trouble is that you can't grasp reality.


How can you relate an 8 mile debris field as a result of UA93 impact alone, it was helped with an 8 mile debris field which was blown around by wind?


The 8 mile debris field was not a result of the impact alone, it had the help of an 11 mph wind that was blowing the light debris. You can't seem to get a fix on that for some reason.


Please tell me what I'm missing...


Pretty much every fact concerning Flight 93.


Have you even compared the crash site photos between the two flights?


I have


Look at the concentration of debris in either case.

Don't make me link photos to prove a point; i'd hate to waste more time
on this trivial and simple fact.


I have stated that the crashes are similar. I have listed the similarities. I've listed a few of the differences.

They both represent what a high speed nose down crash does.

Instead of re-posting pictures we have all seen at least a hundred times, perhaps you can figure out the difference the two air crafts had regarding the kinetic energy that was produced at the time if impact.




[edit on 15-5-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Mods, can we ban this joker?

The damn photos of Shanksville tell all...and this guy just posts up like the
photo evidence is imaginary.

How do you debate people that don't use their eyes and constantly lie?

Sorry to say Mr. Cameron Fox, but you can't pretend the pictures don't
exist to support your twisted theory.

Hop in your car and start driving 11 MPH. Tell me how far you get in about
10 minutes.

Then look at the photos and area around the crater.

Put 2+2 together.

Maybe you can try something else? Grab some aluminum sheets, or even
paper and toss it on your lawn.

Wait for an 11 MPH wind and track how far the paper and aluminum moves
in 10 minutes.

Pray to 'god' that your debris is pushed by a CONSTANT 11 MPH wind
in several directions.

You may as well call your story, "the donut theory". Debris lands anywhere
but the crash site.


[edit on 15-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Just ignore CF. That works best. The government loyalists are in confusion mode because their precious 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is collapsing around their ears. There isn't much left to cling to, so they are working damage control. Don't expect any common sense out of them.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Holy crap, what a way to go offtopic by some posters here, I usually dont post because of that.

So many obvious things to distract or derail a topic, wont name members just pointing that out.

Anyway back on topic, the is no way that a plane will hit nose down first and burry itself with the tail ending at the bottom.

for the people asking for experts, what a stupid thing to say because you wont believe simple logic?

besides soft soil or not, that plane would have not burried itself the way the official story claims. a plane hitting the water would show that wings and other parts come off on impact.

ofcourse its got to hit the same way it hit in shanksville, if not othe similarities irrelevant.

instead of looking for similar scenarios, all the anomalies point at something fishy.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Mods, can we ban this joker?


Turbo. I am posting within the guidelines of ATS. You are THAT worried about what I am posting because I have shown proof as to what happens during a high speed, nose down crash. Sorry that it upsets you.

Honestly I am disappointed that a self proclaimed FDR expert like yourself is not more knowledgeable.


The damn photos of Shanksville tell all...and this guy just posts up like the photo evidence is imaginary.


Like this "damn" photo take right outside the crater?





How do you debate people that don't use their eyes and constantly lie?


You are being put in your place...so you are appealing to other member by attacking me...

Calling me a liar.

Asking to get me banned

Calling me a government loyalist.

This is all you got Turbo?

I expected more from you.


Sorry to say Mr. Cameron Fox, but you can't pretend the pictures don't
exist to support your twisted theory.


Interesting... You talk about my twisted theory, yet you ... like other PFFTER's ... don't have a theory.


Hop in your car and start driving 11 MPH. Tell me how far you get in about 10 minutes.


Hey, FDR expert, the ground winds were at 11 mph. Care to do a little research and explain to us what the wind speeds were at around 1,000 feet? I can assure you it was MUCH higher than 11MPH. Think for a second why I am asking you this. I know you can do it. I have faith in you!!



Then look at the photos and area around the crater.


I have looked at all of them.... I ask that you look again at the photo above.


Put 2+2 together.


I've seen Pilots 4 911 Truth "math". What do YOU get when you add 2+2?


Maybe you can try something else? Grab some aluminum sheets, or even
paper and toss it on your lawn.

Wait for an 11 MPH wind and track how far the paper and aluminum moves
in 10 minutes.


Strawman... You have failed to show that the debris was in Baltimore in 10 minutes.

Do as I ask, expert. Get the wind speeds, and then you tell us how long it would take for a small charred piece of paper to travel 8 miles.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Like this "damn" photo take right outside the crater?


Wow, look at those rocks and all that dirt!







Hey, FDR expert, the ground winds were at 11 mph. Care to do a little research and explain to us what the wind speeds were at around 1,000 feet? I can assure you it was MUCH higher than 11MPH. Think for a second why I am asking you this. I know you can do it. I have faith in you!!


To explain how debris gets blown over an 8 mile radius when aircraft
is shot down?!



I have looked at all of them.... I ask that you look again at the photo above.



Awesome. Took a second look. I made a mistake!!!

Nice rocks, dirt and TREES!




You are being put in your place...so you are appealing to other member by attacking me...


Yes, it shows...seems like more people are on my side about this.

Maybe you can get your friends to tag up some stars for you to make
it look good.

Thanks for the laugh big guy. Gotta run out and play now. Have fun
with your imaginary photos. Maybe you can imagine a green dog
fetching all that non existent debris?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arsenis

besides soft soil or not, that plane would have not burried itself the way the official story claims. a plane hitting the water would show that wings and other parts come off on impact.



Hey Cam? Maybe you should hook up with Arsenis and learn something.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Wow, look at those rocks and all that dirt!







Lots of flat rocks in Shanksville huh??



Look at a few more:

s121.photobucket.com...

s121.photobucket.com...

s121.photobucket.com...

Now look at the debris field from flight 1771.

s121.photobucket.com...




To explain how debris gets blown over an 8 mile radius when aircraft
is shot down?!


You can dodge this until the cows come home. Man up and tell me what the wind speeds were on 09/11/2001 in Shanksville- Baltimore at an altitude of approximately 1K ft. Again, I will assure you they were a lot stronger. Let me know when you figure it out there FDR expert.

It appears you hold onto the "shoot down" theory. Explain to me why only very light weight derbris were found outside the impact point of Flight 93.

If you want to say this isn't true, the onus is on YOU to show me evidence to the contrary.






Awesome. Took a second look. I made a mistake!!!

Nice rocks, dirt and TREES!


Your ignorance to the debris that was found in and around the crater is obvious.





Yes, it shows...seems like more people are on my side about this.

Maybe you can get your friends to tag up some stars for you to make
it look good.


This is a Rob Balsamo style post. Let's count the stars near our posts to see who's right.

Really "Tino," you think I care if my posts get starred in a Conspiracy Website? I realize I am in the minority in here.



Thanks for the laugh big guy. Gotta run out and play now. Have fun
with your imaginary photos. Maybe you can imagine a green dog
fetching all that non existent debris?


You have fun playing with your imaginary girlfriend...

-SNIPPED FOR CIVILITY-

Let me know when you found those wind speeds expert!

[edit on 15-5-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
My real name is Tino, you don't need to put me in quote. I don't hide
like all of you GL's.

I'm really not sure what wind speeds at 1000 feet have to do with
debris on the ground. Where are you going with this?

So far you haven't shown me any evidence to account for enough
debris to suggest a 757 crashed in and under that crater.

If an aircraft cannot displace water fast enough without breaking apart,
how do you suppose the plane will be able to move the earth any easier?

Are you suggesting the ground in the photos is less dense than the ocean?
Maybe it's possible...in which case all of those investigators can walk on
water!


Keep trying though; a few more replies and you might convince me that
an aluminum tube can push enough dirt out of the way to dig itself 165
feet deep at such high speed.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
My real name is Tino, you don't need to put me in quote. I don't hide
like all of you GL's.


Well Tino, hooray for you using your real name.

Do you know the co-founder of Pilots 4 911 Truth Rob Balsamo posts personal information on his website? You know, the "detractors" thread. You have posted there to I believe. The few times I went to that site, I was at my place of employment. Rob was quick to post where I was. So yes, I will remain anonymous because of people like Rob Balsamo.


I'm really not sure what wind speeds at 1000 feet have to do with
debris on the ground. Where are you going with this?


Your claim that the debris found in Baltimore got there very fast. 10 minutes I believe you claim? I asked that you present some evidence to this claim. So far, you have not responded. The wind speeds at higher altitutes were faster (much faster). This was a determining factor from the NSTB as to how the very light debris was scattered for such a long distance.

I trust that you will be very thorough in researching this.


So far you haven't shown me any evidence to account for enough
debris to suggest a 757 crashed in and under that crater.


See, this is a typical truther response. You sir, have to show me what you think is an appropriate amount of debris from a high speed nose down impact.

I have attempted with video evidence. witness statements, NTSB, and FDR reports, to show you that there was at least one crash that was similar. Flight 1771.

If an aircraft cannot displace water fast enough without breaking apart, how do you suppose the plane will be able to move the earth any easier?

Can you please tell me what airline accident your are referring to that crash over water?

The rest of your post contains nothing but childish word play and strawman garbage.







posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Your claim that the debris found in Baltimore got there very fast. 10 minutes I believe you claim?


No, you are misunderstanding. The first witnesses to the crash site
were there within 10 minutes of the impact. Their statements and
photos support that a commerical airliner/757 did not crash there.

We don't see any photo evidence showing enough debris to support
a 757 crash.

If you claim the wind carried a majority of it away, I ask how far
do you believe the plane parts moved within 10 minutes?


Flight 1771 shows an example of debris concentrated near the crash
site. THis is nothing alike UA93 when viewing the photo and video
evidence.

So, back to circular questions that you keep avoiding:

Where are the rims, wheels, landing gear, seats, tail section, etc. that
should have appeared in the crater long before an engine rotor was
recovered?

Where is the balance of debris that was ejected from the crater upon
impact?

Why do you continue to quote wind speed at 1000 foot altitude, when
the crash happend at ground level according to the official story?
The debris is at ground level. The wind speed as you suggest was 11 MPH.
What's the point of discussing wind speed at 1000 feet? Please enlighten me.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

No, you are misunderstanding. The first witnesses to the crash site
were there within 10 minutes of the impact. Their statements and
photos support that a commerical airliner/757 did not crash there.


Let's talk about those that were there shall we? Now, what we don't know is (and this is also a response to the quote from you below) what we are supposed to see in a high speed, nose down impact. First responders and witnesses on the scene did state that it did not look like a plane crashed. (the ones that watched it going down knew it was)

So, what we do now is attempt to compare this crash to something similar. This is a very difficult crash as most planes that crash have an experienced pilot doing all he can to save the craft and passengers.

This is why in response to your OP I posted the video of flight 1771. No, it is not "identical." yet quite similar in that it was a high speed, nose down craft.

We read the witness statements, the first responder statements, the FDFR, the CVR, etc. We look at the photographic evidence.

Flight 1771 first responders did not think a plane crashed. It was not until it was reported that a plane was missing that they determined this was a commercial airliner.

The debris fields were pretty close. No large recognizable parts. Flight 1771 responder stated "nothing bigger than a suitcase."


We don't see any photo evidence showing enough debris to support
a 757 crash.


Do you know of any NTSB agents, or first responders that don't believe a plane crashed there? Or are they all in on it too?


If you claim the wind carried a majority of it away, I ask how far
do you believe the plane parts moved within 10 minutes?


I'm not saying the majority was carried away. I was responding to your post regarding the 8 mile debris field. This debris field was in fact in the direction of the winds that day. As posted previously, only very light debris was recovered in Baltimore. (paper, small pieces of vinyl)

I ask you to show me what was found through out the 8 mile debris filed, that you feel is not consistent with a high speed nose down crash.



Flight 1771 shows an example of debris concentrated near the crash
site. THis is nothing alike UA93 when viewing the photo and video
evidence.


That is one photo that shows the scattering of debris. It was from a screen shot from the video I posted. Please read a little more into the debris field regarding this crash. (1771) Did you notice the crater? Did you see any distinguishable plane parts?

By stating that it is "nothing like" Flight 93, Tino, you are being disingenuous. I know your not that ignorant.



Where are the rims, wheels, landing gear, seats, tail section, etc. that
should have appeared in the crater long before an engine rotor was
recovered?


We have seen several parts. (not all) What I ask of you is to once again look at flight 1771 and show me the photographs of the tail section there. The Engine rotor... etc. Again..high speed... nose down... Compare the two. "Nothing that resembled an aircraft."


Why do you continue to quote wind speed at 1000 foot altitude, when
the crash happend at ground level according to the official story?
The debris is at ground level. The wind speed as you suggest was 11 MPH.
What's the point of discussing wind speed at 1000 feet? Please enlighten me.


The crash was at ground level. Flight 93 weighed about 77000 kg and struck the ground at 504 knots. Hopefully you're better at math than Balsamo. Please calculate the kinetic energy that was produced when flight 93 impacted the ground.

What do you think was in that massive flume that was photographed. (you can find the answers pretty easily)



[edit on 16-5-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

The debris fields were pretty close. No large recognizable parts. Flight 1771 responder stated "nothing bigger than a suitcase."


You are testing my patience with this run-around. You are simply avoiding
my three quesitons and asking new unrelated questions to delay the
inevitable response.

I don't care how big the pieces of debris were. I am asking you WHY
the Shanksville photos DO NOT show a required amount of debris in
proximity to the crater.

I do not care whether someone thought a plane crashed there, or not.
Please tell me what happened to the plane parts! Where did they go?
Show me the photo/video evidence of the crash parts in and around the
crater.

Show me the landing gear, rims, etc. that would have been pulled out
of the crater since you believe a 757 can dig itself into the ground!

If the tail section, and fuselage are not beneath the crater, show me
photos that support a balance of debris to prove a 757 crashed near
the crater.

Here are several photos of the 'crash site'. Not much to see here:





gfx.dagbladet.no...



i29.photobucket.com...



You answer my questions in the previous post, and I promise to reply
to yours. Let's get my questions out of the way first...as they were
asked first.

That is my promise to you. Let's see if we can end this within the next two
replies huh Cam? You answer me. I'll answer you. Two posts, then we
can move forward.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan


You are testing my patience with this run-around. You are simply avoiding
my three quesitons and asking new unrelated questions to delay the
inevitable response.

I don't care how big the pieces of debris were. I am asking you WHY
the Shanksville photos DO NOT show a required amount of debris in
proximity to the crater.


I am not avoiding anything Tino. I am not giving you the run around. You sir, need to explain to me what the "required" amount of debris is in a high speed, nose down air crash. I am not a member of the NTSB, nor have I had training on air crash investigations. What I had to do was research air crashes that were similar. This was no easy task as the specifics of each crash made the results quite indifferent. The kinetic energy involved in the crashes are all quite different. Obliviously as my perseveration shows, Flight 1771 is the closest that I have researched.

Regarding flight 1771, there is no record of large engine parts found. There is no record of a tail piece found. Landing gear, etc. Should there have been? There is a photograph of the crater, no engine there either?

What we have is UA Flight 93 crashing at a high speed into an abandoned strip mine, creating kinetic energy with the equivalent of about 1,400 pounds of TNT.



I do not care whether someone thought a plane crashed there, or not.
Please tell me what happened to the plane parts! Where did they go?
Show me the photo/video evidence of the crash parts in and around the
crater.


You brought up the witnesses. I was responding to you sir. You were deceitful in using a simile that was stated by some of the first people at the scene. My response was appropriate.

You want to ask me what happened to the parts? I can't tell you! I wasn't there. The FBI claims that 95% has been recovered. UA was given the remains. Have you contacted them? Are some parts still buried? I don't know. I would believe so.


Show me the landing gear, rims, etc. that would have been pulled out
of the crater since you believe a 757 can dig itself into the ground!


You know that there were no photographs taken of most of the remains pulled out of the strip mine. By suggesting the plane "dug itself" is another strawman attempt.




Here are several photos of the 'crash site'. Not much to see here:


Your photographs are show from the opposite side. (and quite far away) I have shown you several photos that show quite a bit of debris (similar to flight 1771)

I suggest you look at the photos I posted previously. There is plenty of debris there.




[edit on 16-5-2009 by CameronFox]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join