Only two external walls were breached at the pentagon,the outer E ring and inner C ring the rest of the walls are interior. Look at your pentagon picture. Thats a roof between C and D not a road. This is an easy fact to verify. Please amend your paper.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

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".

Yes, but 'attacking' another country does not bend the normal laws of physics, like all the other 'firsts' appear to do...

There are countless cases of groups undertaking terrorist/military attacks on other nations - this is nothing new. I assume you mean 'exactly' like that? Planes into buildings? Do you mean that Japanese kamikaze attacks with planes are not the same either because they hit metal objects like ships and not metal objects like the WTC? Does the fact that the planes are a smaller scale make that much of a difference to the physics?

Originally posted by CameronFox
Dewey, thank you for spending your time in writing your paper. I have to tell you, there are very few truthers that actually do anything outside reading truther websites and listening to the blow hole Alex Jones.

I am not educated in soil compactness etc. I will leave that to you. Couple of things I have issue with.

First of all. Did you happen to calculate the kinetic energy involved with the impact of Flight 93?

Flight 93 had a mass of 100,000Kg
It is traveling at 255 meters per second
The trench and crater are 2-3 meters deep(call it 3m)

If you do the math, you will see that the kinetic energy was equal too about 1484 pounds of TNT.

One more thing. It appears to me that you are not familiar with the crash of flight 1771. To suggest there has never been another highspeed, nose down, commercial craft like flight 93 is a little naive. Please look into this crash and the similarities to flight 93. Yes there are differences, but you seem like a pretty open minded person. Make note of the crater and debris fields from both crashes.

Thanks CameronFox. To be honest, I've never seen or read anything by Alex Jones, but I've heard a lot of people talk about him. He seems a bit...uhhh...'consipratorial' for me... not sure I really want to waste my time there...

I didn't do the calcs for kinetic energy, so I'm happy to agree with yours. However, this is kinetic energy (which is directional), which is not explosive like TNT - I believe most of the crater was caused by the kinetic energy of the plane, not allegedy exploding jet fuel, the force of most of which would radiate around the path of least resistance, as mentioned in the paper. The fact that the grass inside the crater is not burnt would suggest the crater was caused by momentum, not explosion of jet fuel.

I'm certainly happy to agree that the impact (and resulting kinetic energy) would certainly create a crater, which would be at least as deep as you mention - there's no argument from me there. But, as physics shows, the ground at the point of impact is providing 'almost' the same resisting force to the plane. This is why, particularly with something hitting the ground at less than 45º, the resulting forces would act to 'rebound', as shown. So to assume that the plane kept travelling in the same direction to bury itself doesn't make sense. As the paper also showed, the more kinetic energy the plane has, the more resistance the ground provides. So, crater - absolutely. Buried plane - don't be silly.

Further, to claim that some pieces are buried 50' deep (as some people do), is nonsense, as far as I'm concered. I'll convert it to metric, because most humans gave up the imperial system when we came out of the trees .

50' is roughly 15 metres. One cubic metre of sand that is 15 metres deep not only has its own inertia, but the added weight of 14 cubic metres of sand on top of it. Using the figures in the paper, this equates to 20 tons pushing down on it. To displace this with shards of aluminium sheeting or seats is nonsense. Also, as that cubic metre of sand is surrounded by other cubic metres of sand with the same downward force on them, the ability for these small pieces to displace the sand laterally is nil.

I haven't been able to find any good photos of Flight 1771 - is there a link somewhere?

Rewey

Originally posted by CameronFox
Dewey,

Personal insult to Rewey is noted, Cameron. I should have warned Rewey that insults and name-calling would also be used against him in this thread.

Also to keep in mind, Flight 93 per the FDR that was found at the crash scene

Also keep in mind that the alleged FDR has never been proven to belong to the alleged Flight UA93. It's a matter of faith if you want to believe the data it allegedly contains.

One more thing. It appears to me that you are not familiar with the crash of flight 1771.

As predicted, on the first page of this thread, we've got another off-topic post about a different plane crash, trying to derail the thread.

That's two off-topic plane crashes from two different government story believers, trying to derail this thread.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Personal insult to Rewey is noted, Cameron. I should have warned Rewey that insults and name-calling would also be used against him in this thread.

It's called a typo. How old are you? The adults in here are trying to have a conversation. Why do you have to instigate?

Also keep in mind that the alleged FDR has never been proven to belong to the alleged Flight UA93. It's a matter of faith if you want to believe the data it allegedly contains.

Hmmm... well then I suggest you call Honeywell. They are the manufactures of the FDR and retrieved the data. Funny how it matched many witness statements.

As predicted, on the first page of this thread, we've got another off-topic post about a different plane crash, trying to derail the thread.

The OP presented a post saying that this was the first time a crash like this happened. Flight 1991 is relevant due to the similairiles. Sorry it hurts you.

That's two off-topic plane crashes from two different government story believers, trying to derail this thread.

I believe the thousands of people that were at the crash scene.
The first responders.
Wally Miller
The FDR
The CVR
The victims families.

You stick to your fantasy world.

In the document ''Flight 93, Soft Shanksville soil, and other such nonsense'' produced by Rewey, it posed 22 very good questions. Would anyone care to answer them ? It is probably better to read them in context in the document but I list them here :

Question 1: How can sand that contains large, hardened pockets of sand, an almost entire covering of wild grass, which leaves clean, sharp edges when dug, and in which feet and vehicles do not sink even slightly, be so ‘loosely packed’ that an entire plane can sink into it, and be so ‘loosely packed’ that it slips back over the plane once buried, leaving it neatly covered?

Question 2: How does a plane travel 34 metres into the sand largely unimpeded, onlyto have the tail fin and last 13 metres of the cabin ‘disintegrate’ solely from the impact of the tail fin with the ground, particularly given that the official story claims the ground was ‘soft and loose’ enough to swallow the entire plane, and the tail fin is apparently very light, and not structurally rigid?

Question 3: If Val McClatchy took this photo, indicating a large explosion:
…which left pieces of debris such as these: …AND ‘disintegrated’ over 200 passenger chairs and internal fittings so that no traces remain, how did the last section of the plane remain intact to leave an imprint with the tail fin?

Question 4: If the plane was decelerating rapidly due to impact and friction with the ground, is it reasonable to assume that by the time the tail fin reached the ground, there would still be sufficient momentum for the entire tail fin to ‘disintegrate’?

Question 5: How can it be argued that the ground was ‘soft and loose enough that it swallowed an entire plane’, but at the same time the ground was so hard that it ‘disintegrated the entire tail fin into tiny pieces’ (my paraphrasing here, not direct quotes)?

Question 6: Is it realistic to expect that a tail fin impact on a bomb-resistant concrete building would result in much greater damage than a tail fin impact with ‘soft, loose sand’?

Question 7: Is it realistic to expect that exploding jet fuel as it impacts ‘soft, loose sand’ will react or explode differently to exploding jet fuel impacting with a bomb-resistant concrete building?

Question 8: If most of the blast impact at the Pentagon crash is dissipated throughout the mostly-empty office floors or outside of the building as shown, how did the blast manage to spread vertically through 5 steel-reinforced concrete floors, as shown below?

Question 9: If this damage is caused by the blast, and not the tail fin, why is it only vertical damage, all the way to the roof, and not in a radial fashion?

Question 10: If at least a part of the Pentagon damage shown was caused by the tail fin of the supposed plane, how did it behave so differently to the tail fin in the Shanksville crash (which apparently left only a minor impression on ‘soft, loose sand’), given both planes hit stationary objects and both planes experienced a jet fuel explosion?

Question 11: If Val McClatchy took this photo, indicating a large explosion:
…which tore the plane apart, leaving thousands of pieces of debris such as these: …how did the plane bury itself entirely in sand, given that it was separated into much smaller individual pieces, each of which would not be carrying the same momentum as when traveling as one, connected mass (the plane)?

Question 12: If there are countless recreations and computer simulations of the two planes hitting the WTC towers, and of the alleged plane hitting the Pentagon, why is there not one official source which has produced a recreation or computer simulation of the plane hitting the ground in Shanksville, as per the official story?

Question 13: If Val McClatchy took this photo, indicating a large explosion from the plane’s impact, which could only realistically be from the plane’s fuel load: …which left pieces of debris such as these: …AND given that the fuel of the plane is stored along the wings, how could grass and earth inside the supposed wing imprints be undisturbed and un-burnt? Surely, the point of impact for the wings (the ‘wing imprints’) is the point at which the fuel in the
wings would explode, as per Val McClatchy’s photo?

Question 14: If exploding jet fuel is supposed to look like this: …showing that a large area of the ground is covered, how can the result of a similar
explosion of jet fuel on the same day result in no burnt grass, right up to, and even inside the point of impact with the ground, such as below?

Question 15: If the burning jet fuel was sprayed or thrown approximately 60 metres towards the wooded area, why does Val McClatchy’s photo show a cloud of smoke which indicates both a singular point of explosion, and one initial explosion with virtually no residual burning, as shown below?

Question 16: How can one plane lose or shatter its cockpit when hitting sand so ‘loosely packed’ that it swallowed the rest of the plane, whilst another on the same day crashes through 6 external bomb-resistant walls?

Question 17: As discussed above in the section on inertia, how were these other parts able to crash through 6 external walls, given that the momentum and inertia they carried as individual, disconnected items is far less than when traveling as one connected, heavy mass?

Question 19: How can 406 tons, or 282m³, of sand be displaced almost instantly, yet show absolutely no evidence of disturbance in the ground immediately around the alleged crash site?


Question 20: What type of ‘loosely packed’ sand provides absolutely no resistance to a 90 ton Boeing traveling at great speed, yet is firm enough for people to walk on without sinking up to their ankles, or for vehicles to drive on without becoming
bogged?

Question 21: If a plane has lost its cockpit, and therefore its ‘wedge’ shaped profile, how did it bury itself in sand when there was a force acting to push the nose away from the ground at roughly 25º, which is magnified the faster the plane is traveling, and another force provided by gravity acting to twist the plane further onto its back?

Question 22: How, therefore, could this loose sand hold the nose of the plane firmly in the ground to prevent it tipping over, particularly given that the plane was only at 40º to the ground? Surely the nose would have just lifted through this incredibly ‘loosely packed’ sand?

Originally posted by CameronFox
Dewey...

Innocent typo... no blood, no foul.

Besides - even if it was an insult, I don't get it! And I've been called much worse!

Rewey

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Rewey]

Originally posted by waypastvne
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.

Just thinking about your comments here waypastvne...

Although I'm going to change the paper to note that the exterior tail fin skin was carbon fibre, there are still a couple of questions that still won't be answered:

1. If Val McClatchy took a photo of the result of the explosion, which apparently shattered the main cabin and fuselage, how did the tail make it all the way to the ground to be shattered on impact?

2. If the plane was decelrating rapidly due to impact and friction with the ground, is it reasonable to assume that by the time the tail fin reached the ground, there would still be sufficient momentum for the tail fin, even a carbon fibre one, to 'disintegrate' on impact with soft or 'loosely packed' soil, soft enough to swallow almost the entire plane? The plane would have had to travel around 34 metres into the ground before the tail fin would impact with this soft, loose soil.

3. You mention that the resin does burn away. This raises another discrepancy between a jet fuel explosion from the wings (and therefore tanks) impacting the ground, but not burning or disrupting the grass growing there, yet still burning all the resin from the tail section of the plane...

Just things to think about...

Rewey



[edit on 23-6-2009 by Rewey]

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Rewey]