Flight 93 - Soft Shanksville soil and other nonsense..., page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 01:37 AM by titorite

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Well previously you just stated THE WRECKAGE and not some wreckage So it is kind of back tracking on your part

but I can see past that.

Now onto your claim of 50ft. You claimed they had to dig fifty feet to retrieve the wreckage from the "soft" soil however from the moment the news media showed the public the first photos from flight 93 only an impact crater was shown to us. Their was no plane sticking out of that crater... no extra 100 feet. Not in the crater... Not immediately around the crater.

You seem to now infer that they did not have to dig 50ft down but that the plane only buried fifty feet of itself into the ground leaving the other 100 feet of plane to go where ever it went.

So which is it? Did the investigators have to dig 50ft down before they reached the wreckage or did only 50 foot of the plane bury itself?

[edit on 22-6-2009 by titorite]

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 01:44 AM by Swampfox46_1999

reply to post by titorite

Now onto your claim of 50ft. You claimed they had to dig fifty feet to retrieve the wreckage from the "soft" soil however from the moment the news media showed the public the first photos from flight 93 only an impact crater was shown to us. Their was no plane stick out of that crater... no extra 100 feet. Not in the crater... Not immediately around the crater.

The close up photos of the crater definitely DO show pieces of wreckage as do the photos of the area leading to the woods, the photos of the yard of the gentleman who lived there.....

And yes, some of the plane penetrated fifty feet into the ground, some of the airframe most likely compressed during the impact....and the rest of it was ripped apart and scattered to hell and back by the explosion. Im sorry if Flight 93 didnt fit into your neat little book of airliner accidents.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 02:01 AM by titorite

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

The close up photos of the crater definitely DO show pieces of wreckage as do the photos of the area leading to the woods,

I said immediately. I mean the impact point and the area surrounding it.. not the trees, not the mans yard, not even that dirt road inbtween the impact and the trees.

If you have a photo to upload that was taken by the MSM on 911 (no 9/12 photos now) please show us the crater as it looked immediately after impact.

I would like to see this debris you claim is there.

In the mean time I would like to examine this next part of your previous statement.

And yes, some of the plane penetrated fifty feet into the ground, some of the airframe most likely compressed during the impact.

You say "most likely", like you can not be 100% sure... I understand the doubt of your statement. If the airframe compressed during impact then you can tell us if you believe that compressed airframe went in 50ft underground.

Do you have a link of this compressed 50 feet of plane? Maybe on a flatbed being hauled away for forensic investigation.

I mean when a car is compressed it is still there in a nice box shape. it does just disappear like flight 93 did.

I would also like to inform you that I do not have a "neat little book of airliner accidents."

EDIT to add disinformation tactic of vanishing does not look good on ya. I've waited an hour now for your reply but you never gave it... Thats too bad.. I shall continue to look forward to you response to the above Swampfox46_1999 Till then.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by titorite]

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 02:12 AM by titorite

Ok I just got done downloading that PDF on 56k... Excellent article Rewey!

Absolutely excellent. Well written. Full of common sense and simple logic both mathematically and geologically that calls into question the most questionable aspects of the story.

I have not read through it all.... only the first 10 pages or so still Very good work!

I look forward to referencing it myself in the future if thats cool with you.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 03:11 AM by Rewey

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Rewey

The statement does not say that the soil was clean, it says it is within the standards for those chemicals. If there is a detailed report from United, I have yet to find it. I will say that I believe the majority of the jet fuel was consumed in the explosion.

In addition, making assumptions about the soil composition based on relatively crappy photos, probably not the best course of action.

Do you know what the 'acceptable levels' of those chemicals are? I wouldn't have a clue, but I'd guarantee they'd be only acceptable in tiny proportions. A few parts per million, no more. I think this means we agree that if there was a crash, the fuel was consumed on impact. But given the alleged imact of the wings on the ground, which is where the fuel is stored (largely) I can't see the undisturbed grass ground in the supposed 'wing imprints' fitting into anyone's book of plane crashes. I've never argued that there should be jet fuel in the soil (but I also don't believe Val McClatchy's photo is genuine - but this is another argument altogether).

As for the 'crappy photos' of the soil condition - please remember that this is a big part of what I do for a living. There is more than adequate evidence presented in those photos to assess the likely condition of the soil. Until someone performs a compaction test, of course, there's no definite proof, but if I wasn't agitated by how obvious the clues were to me, I wouldn't have written the report at all. And it's not one hastily snapped photo - it's basically all of the photos that I saw from the crash site which confirmed what I was trying to demonstrate. Besides - if they are suitable quality to be used as exhibits in Court, they are suitable quality for me. Please feel free to locate the larger versions on the internet. I was going to include all photos used as large appendices in the report, but couldn't be bothered at the end, when they're readily available everywhere.

Your comments about the airframe (most likely) being compressed on impact means it is even less likely to have been scattered over a wide area. Any compression of the airframe would result in deceleration of the components of the plane, and would be counteracting the forces acting to 'bury' the plane in the sand. This means there would be a lot more physical evidence and debris immediately surrounding the gash which represents the alleged crash site... The parts would not be buried as deep, and would not be spread as far.

Rewey

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:10 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Did Flight 93 hit quicksand/swamp like Valujet 593? No. But then again, the ground wasnt solid as a rock either.

As predicted in my initial post... here is the first attempt to derail the thread with mention of an off-topic plane crash.

Swampfox, you've clearly buried yourself inside a crater of contradictions. We have two statements from you, claiming completely different things about the alleged Flight 93 crash site.

Swampfox, you do realise that Reheat stated that the bulk of the plane was buried, right? Why do you disagree with Reheat, when you both believe the official story? But wait, you do agree with Reheat... that was until you contradicted yourself and stated that you didn't...

Once again ATS proves to be far better entertainment than TV.

Well done, titorite. I didn't have the time to try and search for a contradiction from Swampfox so I'm glad you found it. He'll have to deal with this every time that he tries to explain away the Flight 93 crash site, from now on. That's another one to store in my quote file.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:21 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, I did not say it had completely buried itself, I said they had to dig 50 feet into the ground for some of the wreckage. The fuselage is over 150 feet long. Lets see 150 minus 50.......

Debunker Math 101:
Swampfox claimed that the plane did not completely bury itself. It only went down 50 feet, so the other 100 feet of it must be somewhere else.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
There was wreckage of that airplane extending over 200 feet from the impact point. So, no, it did not completely bury itself.

Reheat claimed that the bulk of the plane did bury itself, right here.

Let's see the bulk of 150 feet = 75+ feet. That's far more than Swampfox's claim of 50 feet and that's assuming that 'the bulk' of the plane is only one half! To me, a phrase like 'the bulk' of the plane means at least two-thirds or more. I guess that's why Reheat refused to quantify his subjective numerical estimate.

Swampfox and Reheat, when both of you agree about which version of the official story you are going to spin, together, without contradicting each other, please return to the thread. We can take it from there.

In the mean time, you're making it too easy for us.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 06:46 AM by mumblyjoe

Anyone see a plane ?

Anyone who still believes that flight 93 buried itself into the ground should seek help. For their own good I don't think it is safe for them to be walking around in their entirely confused state. Obviously they will believe anything that they are told and therefore need some protection and assistance. If you know anyone who has this condition, please, be a good citizen and help them out.

So to sum up :
NO FIRE, NO FUEL, NO PARTS (some rubble), NO EVIDENCE, NO PLANE!!!

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 08:42 AM by Swampfox46_1999

EDIT to add disinformation tactic of vanishing does not look good on ya. I've waited an hour now for your reply but you never gave it... Thats too bad.. I shall continue to look forward to you response to the above Swampfox46_1999 Till then.

Its called going to bed....you should try it sometime.

As for the rest of your post....

If you are looking for a nice, long, 50 foot chunk of fuselage from Flight 93, you arent going to find one. I guess I should have explained the "compressed" remark, because it made you think the whole airplane folded up like an accordion. Items normally located at the tail of the airplane were found in the crater, and since the plane did not dig 150 into the ground that would mean those items traveled forward (item 140 feet from the nose, ending up in a crater less than a third the size of the fuselage...hopefully you get it now, probably not, but there is a chance).

If you have a photo to upload that was taken by the MSM on 911 (no 9/12 photos now) please show us the crater as it looked immediately after impact.

Not exactly sure why you think a picture from 9/12 wouldnt be an accurate representation. Unless of course, you are one of those people who think that government fairies spent the night of 9/11 dumping airliner parts on the ground...under the eyes of the people on site.

You say "most likely", like you can not be 100% sure

You are right, I was not there, I didn't help pick up the pieces.

I would also like to inform you that I do not have a "neat little book of airliner accidents."

From your posts, appearantly you do. Because you (and others) on this thread seem to think that Flight 93's crash site, should have conformed to your notions of what a crash site looks like.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 08:52 AM by Swampfox46_1999

Your comments about the airframe (most likely) being compressed on impact means it is even less likely to have been scattered over a wide area. Any compression of the airframe would result in deceleration of the components of the plane, and would be counteracting the forces acting to 'bury' the plane in the sand. This means there would be a lot more physical evidence and debris immediately surrounding the gash which represents the alleged crash site... The parts would not be buried as deep, and would not be spread as far

That is a guess on my part based on items from the tail of the airliner being found in the crater. There is plenty of physical evidence in and surrounding the crater...most of it pitifully small pieces of what used to be human beings and an airliner.

Again, comparing Flight 93 to what you think you should have seen at an airliner's crash site as a layman, not a good idea.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 09:09 AM by mumblyjoe

Please forgive me Dr Seuss, perhaps this will reach the level of people who believe that flight 93 buried itself into the ground :

Whole planes and sham.

I would not, could not, find a plane
Perhaps it could be down this drain?
I looked and looked but could not see
Where that plane could possibly be
I could not find it here or there
I could not find it anywhere

I do not eat whole planes and sham
I do not like them, NO-Scam-I-am

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 09:10 AM by Rewey

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

That is a guess on my part based on items from the tail of the airliner being found in the crater...

Again, comparing Flight 93 to what you think you should have seen at an airliner's crash site as a layman, not a good idea.

It's got nothing to do with what I expect it to look like - it's got to do with an understanding of the type of soil it hit, and simple physics. Look... if you want to 'guess' how things went, that's fine because nobody on ATS went there to help pick up the pieces, so we're all guessing too. But my 'guess' is based on my understanding of something I work with every day.

Your last line stuns me a bit - what I think I should have seen? I think you are basing 'what I think I should have seen' on the fact that no plane in the history of flight has hit the ground and been swallowed up. Seriously - there are far too many 'first time evers' in the whole 9/11 story. First time a plane gets swallowed up by sand, first time (3 times actually) that a steel-frame building falls from fire, first time a plane hits a building, and has all the wings and tail fold up neatly into a tiny hole... all on the same day? It really must have been a remarkable day in physics...

Rewey

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 09:15 AM by Swampfox46_1999

reply to post by mumblyjoe

Fire...

There was a crater in the ground that was really burning," Peterson said. Strewn about were pieces of clothing hanging from trees and parts of the Boeing 757, but nothing bigger than a couple of feet long, he said. Many of the items were burning.

www.post-gazette.com...

The ensuing firestorm lasted five or 10 minutes and reached several hundred yards into the sky, said Joe Wilt, 63, who also lives a quarter-mile from the crash site.

Jetliner Was Diverted Toward Washington Before Crash in Pa." The Washington Post September 12, 2001

Shanksville VFD firefighter Keith Curtis: "I walked up to where the tire was on fire, probably a hundred feet past the crater. It was a big tire. I was thinking that this is a big jet. I hit it good with the hose and put it out. I stopped and 'poof,' it just started on fire again."

Courage After the Crash: Flight 93" by Glenn J. Kashurba

Fuel..

King: "We stopped and I opened the door. The smell of jet fuel was overpowering

Bill Baker, Somerset County Emergency Management Agency.. The jet fuel smell was really strong

Courage After the Crash: Flight 93" by Glenn J. Kashurba

Parts

I felt it was too coincidental not to be related to what was going on. I didn't think that Shanksville was a target of terrorists attacks, I just didn't know what was going on,' said King. He was not sure what scene to expect at the crash site. When King and his crew arrived, they saw what smoking pieces remained of the plane. “There were small pieces everywhere and small signs of human remains. It was total destruction.” King called his wife and told her to pull their kids out of school. His biggest fear was not knowing what was going on across the country while he provided disaster relief at the crash site. “I didn’t know indescribably if planes would be falling out of the sky,”

74.125.95.132...:5HUtBBj9o3MJ:911digitalarchive.org/REPOSITORY/MISC_COLLECTIONS/janet_frank_atkinson/Flight_93_unedite d.doc

Firefighter Mike Sube: "We made our way to a small pond. That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there.

Lieutenant Roger Bailey, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department: "We started down through the debris field. I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail

Bill Baker, Somerset County Emergency Management Agency: "There was debris everywhere. You couldn't step without walking on a piece of plane part, fabric, or some kind of debris

Courage After the Crash: Flight 93" by Glenn J. Kashurba

When former firefighter Dave Fox arrived at the scene, "He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote.

www.pittsburghlive.com...

Whats your next argument? No photos...oh wait...here you go..

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 09:20 AM by Swampfox46_1999

Your last line stuns me a bit - what I think I should have seen? I think you are basing 'what I think I should have seen' on the fact that no plane in the history of flight has hit the ground and been swallowed up. Seriously - there are far too many 'first time evers' in the whole 9/11 story.

I hate to break it to you, but that isnt the first, nor the last, time an airplane has dug a hole for itself on impact. Not even for an airliner. It doesnt happen often, because airliners rarely impact the ground at the angle flight 93 did, but it has happened. As for the "too many first times" Is there another time someone has launched an attack like that before? No. The whole day was a "first time".

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 10:10 AM by Swampfox46_1999

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 01:46 PM by SPreston

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 02:06 PM by Swampfox46_1999

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 02:26 PM by waypastvne

The AILERONS , FLAPS, SPOILERS, SLATS, VERTICAL STAB, RUDDER, HORIZONTAL STAB, AND ELEVATORS ARE ALL HONEYCOMB / CARBON FIBER CONSTRUCTION.

The sources I cite are from Jane's all the worlds aircraft. and Boeing's web site. There are other sources. Carbon fiber does shatter into very small peices on impact. The resin does burn away and leaves small peices of carbon cloth that can be carried aloft and drift with the wind. This information is easy to verify. Could you please amend your paper with these facts.

I am still reading your paper. I have some more comments. I've been to Perth and I've been to pennsylvania. Have you ever been out side of Oz?

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,
waypastvne

signature

profile posts thread send message ALERT copyright & usage

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 02:56 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Hate to break it to you, but I do not know Reheat, nor have I ever had a conversation with him.

I never stated that you know Reheat. I suggested that you should get together, with him and sort out your stories. In the digital age, you could U2U each other and see where things went wrong for both of you.

There isnt a version of the official story that we are looking to spin together. I leave conspiracy to the "truthers".

Yeah, both of you can't agree on what the 'correct' official story for the crash site should be. You both have made conflicting statements about the plane being buried, or not.

You both believe in the official story, but neither of you can agree with each other about what happened to the plane at Shanksville. Let me know which of you backs down from his false claims first, ok?

[edit on 22-6-2009 by tezzajw]

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 03:13 PM by Swampfox46_1999

reply to post by tezzajw

I dont need to get together with anyone to "sort out" the story. A bunch of flight 93 ended up in the ground and a bunch of it ended up scattered around the crater. End of story.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^