Flight 93 - Soft Shanksville soil and other nonsense...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

And which is why crash investigations are best left to the professionals.

There was plenty of wreckage around the crashsite.

But you're missing my point entirely. The photos you have linked to (the ones which worked - none of the 'google' ones seemed to work) show relatively TINY pieces of wreckage. One shows half a tyre, one shows a fragment of circuit board found over a mile away from the crash site.

These are NOTHING like the photos from the other website of plane crash pictures I linked to. These showed an entire half of a cockpit lying on the ground, or an entire wing still intact, or an entire burnt-out fuselage...

You might argue that they crashed in different ways or were different planes, or whatever, but the simple fact is that only TWO sizeable (bigger than a few inches) pieces of wreckage were photographed - the aluminium sheet, and the portion with the windows. These were included numerous times in my paper.

My entire point is that an entire crash consisting of nothing more than tiny fragments is ENTIRELY inconsistent with every other crash shown on that website - this is why it appears so fake to many people.

Further - THIS IS WHY SO MANY PEOPLE ASSUME THE PLANE WAS SHOT DOWN. What seems more likely - that a very light piece of circuit board be flung more than a mile (given the wind resistance this small fragment of light PCP would encounter), or that it was scattered from an explosion whilst already in motion at a much higher altitude than ground level?

On a side note - why are you allowed to refer to 'small, crappy pics' of alleged evidence, but when I do the same to provide an analysis of the soil, you say I'm not too smart?

Rewey

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Rewey]

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Rewey]

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Rewey]

So far, the only rebuttal to my analysis of the soil in my report has been Swamp_fox's suggestion that I shouldn't rely on relatively small crappy pics.

As I have pointed out, the Government obviously thought that these small, crappy pics were sufficient enough to use as an exhibit in a court of law.

As I have also pointed out, these pics were simply reduced in size to fit into a pdf with explanatory text. For those that wish to see them, I've provided the following links to those photos. You can hold 'Ctrl' and scroll your mouse to make them as big as you like...












Aside from this, there has been no rebuttal of my analysis of the soil surrounding the alleged crash site. Can we assume, therefore, that my analysis is correct, and that the official story that the soil was so 'loosely packed' that it swallowed almost an entire plane is simply utter nonsense?

Rewey

Originally posted by CameronFox

tezzajw
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.

I suggest that you call Honeywell, Cameron. You're the one believing that those black boxes are real, so you're the one who should be offering the proof. The burden is not upon me.

Rewey
On a side note - why are you allowed to refer to 'small, crappy pics' of alleged evidence, but when I do the same to provide an analysis of the soil, you say I'm not too smart?

Get used to it, Rewey. It's a common tactic emplyed to dispute evidence against the official story.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by Rewey

My entire point is that an entire crash consisting of nothing more than tiny fragments is ENTIRELY inconsistent with every other crash shown on that website - this is why it appears so fake to many people.

No, its inconsistent with crashes where the jet hit the ground landing or on take off. It is completely consistent with the few examples we have of an airliner hitting the ground nose first at speed.

reply to post by Rewey

Further - THIS IS WHY SO MANY PEOPLE ASSUME THE PLANE WAS SHOT DOWN. What seems more likely - that a very light piece of circuit board be flung more than a mile (given the wind resistance this small fragment of light PCP would encounter), or that it was scattered from an explosion whilst already in motion at a much higher altitude than ground level?

Well you know what they saw about assumptions.

There is nothing about the crash site of Flight 93 that indicates a shoot down. There are three options for such an event. One, the plane can use its cannon. IF you managed to inflict enough damage to put the jet down you would have a trail of pieces leading the opposite direction, which there was not. Two, they could fire a heat seeker. This would home into and explode one of the engines, which would shower a wide area with engine fragments. This also did not happen, the size of the engine components recovered prove that. Three, a radar guided missile could have been used. Actually, this one would have left larger pieces of the fuselage scattered over a wider area...not to mention human remains over that same area, again, which did not happen.

Well I guess there was another option....a fighter could have rammed it....which again, would have left a mess over a larger area.

There is absolutely no evidence of a shoot down, just uninformed opinion on the matter.

reply to post by Rewey

As I have pointed out, the Government obviously thought that these small, crappy pics were sufficient enough to use as an exhibit in a court of law

Did the Government use those photos to perform a soil analysis? I dont think so. They used them merely to show where the jet hit and give an idea of the destruction of it.

reply to post by Rewey

According to some (like Reheat) more than 80% of the plane's pieces have been found. In many events, particularly ones where they can't work out what happened, or need to provide concrete evidence, they rebuild the crashed pieces on scaffolding.

Yes.....when they cannot figure out what happened......that wasn't the case here.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999



That's an awful lot of rebuttal without actually providing anything useful, sadly... maybe you could answer something straight forward like why the plane doesn't fit it the hole?

"The impact left a crater eight to ten feet deep, and thirty to fifty feet wide.[48]"

Wing tip to wing tip is over 124 feet.

Assumptions aside - Go to those links I put of the photo. Zoom in, and tell me where you think my analysis of the soil is wrong. Don't blame it on the pics being small or crappy - actually give me something that I've missed on the soil composition.

I've given you more than enough on the composition of the soil, evidence of the presence of iron oxide, evidence of rock and compressed sand, evidence of undisturbed and unburnt grass and corresponding role of the root systems, calculations of the density, and therefore inertia and mass of sand which would have to be displaced, and I believe I've stated my qualifications to back that up.

Surely you've got more than 'gee those are crappy pics...'

Rewey


[edit on 24-6-2009 by Rewey]

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Rewey]

posted by Rewey
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

 

Surely you've got more than 'gee those are crappy pics...'

No. That's all he's got; and years and years of denial.

The self-destructing 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY has left the government loyalists with nothing but desperation.

reply to post by Rewey

Assumptions aside - Go to those links I put of the photo. Zoom in, and tell me where you think my analysis of the soil is wrong. Don't blame it on the pics being small or crappy - actually give me something that I've missed on the soil composition.

I cautioned you on relying on pictures for your analysis of the soil there. I am not qualified to make a judgement on the soil there. I have not walked the ground there, nor have I conducted soil tests there...and neither have you. What I DO know a little something about, is aircraft, and how they react under different conditions. In addition, I have had the unfortunate duties to help with aircraft accident investigations. You look at a hole in the ground and see the dirt. I look at the same hole, and I see a portion of a stabilizer, some composites that used to be on an empennage assembly. You look at a picture showing small pieces of metal, fabric and wonder why the pieces aren't larger, I know what its like to pick up those pieces and know what it used to look like before it slammed into the ground at 400+ miles per hour. I also know that an airliner moving at high speed will STILL punch through the ground, even on a baked desert plain......the dredged in tailings of a closed strip mine wont offer much resistance.

On a side note - why are you allowed to refer to 'small, crappy pics' of alleged evidence, but when I do the same to provide an analysis of the soil, you say I'm not too smart?

No, I said it making assumptions on soil composition using crappy photos probably not the best course of action. I didnt say you werent smart so dont act like the rest of the so-called truthers around here and misquote me. If you cannot figure out the difference between using the photos to show pieces of wreckage and using photos to state how hard the ground is...I cannot help you.
[edit on 24-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Rewey

 

Yes.....when they cannot figure out what happened......that wasn't the case here.

OK... if you think they HAVE worked out what happened, can you find ONE official government source which actually refers to the 'dents' in the ground 'wing imprints'? You can't, for exactly the reason in my report - plausible deniability. If it's ever conclusively shown to be wrong in the future, they can say "Well WE never said they were wing imprints - you guys came to your own conclusion there..."

If they were as certain as you are, they would refer to them as such. Do you know of any official government source or report that does? And don't say 'they don't need to write a report when they knew what happened'. Look at how many hundreds of pages were written about the WTC and Pentagon events, and they were all filmed on camera...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Rewey

 

I also know that an airliner moving at high speed will STILL punch through the ground, even on a baked desert plain

Do you KNOW, or are you assuming? Have you got any photos of this happening? I provided lots of photos where it didn't happen...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Rewey

 

No, I said it making assumptions on soil composition using crappy photos probably not the best course of action. I didnt say you werent smart so dont act like the rest of the so-called truthers around here and misquote me.

Don't take this the wrong way - it's typical Australian paraphrasing. A colloquialism, if you will. To do something that is 'not too smart' is to do something which someone believes is not the best course of action. I'm not saying you were questioning by intelligence...

Rewey

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Rewey]

reply to post by Rewey

If they were as certain as you are, they would refer to them as such. Do you know of any official government source or report that does? And don't say 'they don't need to write a report when they knew what happened'. Look at how many hundreds of pages were written about the WTC and Pentagon events, and they were all filmed on camera...

And again, I did not say a report did not need to be written. I said there was no need to try and reconstruct the wreckage.

OK... if you think they HAVE worked out what happened, can you find ONE official government source which actually refers to the 'dents' in the ground 'wing imprints'? You can't, for exactly the reason in my report - plausible deniability. If it's ever conclusively shown to be wrong in the future, they can say "Well WE never said they were wing imprints - you guys came to your own conclusion there..."

When you find a government bureaucrat that will actually take a firm stand on something, please let me know....

Do you KNOW, or are you assuming? Have you got any photos of this happening? I provided lots of photos where it didn't happen...

Yes, I KNOW. Did I take photos? No, I was too busy helping pick up the pieces.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Rewey

 

And again, I did not say a report did not need to be written. I said there was no need to try and reconstruct the wreckage.

Now I feel you're misquoting me... I never said you DID say that. I was saying DON'T JUST BRUSH OFF MY QUESTION by saying that no-one needed to write a report on the crash, when you know well and good that there are THOUSANDS of pages of official reports (NIST, for example, or the Pentagon one you linked to the other day) about events on 9/11 which were captured on numerous cameras for everyone to see.

My question is, given that thousands of pages of reports were written on each of the events of 9/11 (WTC, Pentagon, Shanksville), can you find ONE such official source or report which refers to the depressions in the ground as 'wing imprints'. If the government DOES know exactly what happened at Shanksville, as you claim (because you feel they don't need to reconstruct the wreckage), then why does not ONE source call them 'wing imprints' or similar. The answer is exactly as I mentioned before - plausible deniability.

When you find a government bureaucrat that will actually take a firm stand on something, please let me know....

Please don't insult me by playing that game. The entire NIST report is an example where an official source has taken a firm stand on something they believed happened on 9/11. That is what forms the 'official story'. Please don't brush off an important point like that.

Feel free to say "I haven't seen one", or "I don't know", or "You're right, they've never referred to them as wing imprints", or anything else, but don't just brush it off like that...

Yes, I KNOW. Did I take photos? No, I was too busy helping pick up the pieces.

Even though everyone on ATS constantly say 'no photo, no proof', I'm happy with that explanation. But please provide some details of the event - flight number, date, location - and I'll find it myself. I'm assuming that there is some recording of this event somewhere we can find?

Rewey

PS. Thanks for the time you're spending in keeping this thread going. Although I don't agree with your opinion, I think it's important to flesh out points of discrepancy like this... I'm surprised more 'offical story' supporters aren't helping you out a bit...

Originally posted by Rewey
...DON'T JUST BRUSH OFF MY QUESTION by saying that no-one needed to write a report on the crash, when you know well and good that there are THOUSANDS of pages of official reports (NIST, for example, or the Pentagon one you linked to the other day) about events on 9/11 which were captured on numerous cameras for everyone to see...

Rewey, this is very common my friend. You should get used to it.

Please don't insult me by playing that game. The entire NIST report is an example where an official source has taken a firm stand on something they believed happened on 9/11. That is what forms the 'official story'. Please don't brush off an important point like that.

Again, evasion is common. The NIST report tends to be a holy book of sorts to some. It has been argued by many that the NIST report contains errors in various places, however when questioned about it, much like you just did, the response will be avoidance of the question, or you will be asked to prove it's wrong. Either way, you are likely waisting your time.

Even though everyone on ATS constantly say 'no photo, no proof', I'm happy with that explanation. But please provide some details of the event - flight number, date, location - and I'll find it myself. I'm assuming that there is some recording of this event somewhere we can find?

This is a very good point. There should be SOME way on the internet to look up any and all plane crashes, right? Maybe we can get some conslusive evidence of Mr. Fox on the job. I'd be interested in looking these as well.

UA93 crashed at a 40 degree angle at 580 mph INVERTED. The key word in the previous sentence is INVERTED. To compare this crash to any other crash that is not also INVERTED is not only pointless, it's unjust. Why? Because if the aircraft in INVERTED, the lift vector is INVERTED.*

In a normal crash, where the plane is right side up and pulling multiple Gs, the wings are generating a tremendous amount of lift and the mass of the aircraft is being pulled downward by gravity and angular acceleration. These two forces work directly against one another and when the plane breaks up on impact, the pieces go their own separate ways depending on the forces acting upon them. This results in large pieces of scattered debris.

When it crashed, UA93 was INVERTED and pulling only .64 (point six four) Gs positive. There was very little stress on the airframe. any lift produced by the INVERTED wings was directed downward, not upward. At the point of impact, virtually all kinetic energy was focused in one direction - straight into the hole that the airplane dug.

Inverted crashes are rare. The few instances I know of involve either a mid-air where one plane loses a tail or control system failure resulting in the loss of elevator control.

Below is video of an inverted crash. This was bookmarked on a computer that crashed. It took me three hours to find it again. The relevant footage is at 1:44.



The craft is a T6 Texan, loaded weight 5617 lbs. I estimate an impact speed of 200 mph (about one third the speed of UA93 if you want to do a scaled kinetic energy comparison).



* Yes, I'm aware that it's possible to achieve a negative lift vector while flying inverted with an exaggerated negative angle of attack. This was not the case with UA93.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by waypastvne]

reply to post by waypastvne


It's hard to ask a question and have it come across to the person in a respectful way. With that said, that is my intent here so please, be nice.

My first question is, how do we know the plane was inverted? I'm sure there is something out there that this information comes from, I'm just wondering, because from what I understand, no one saw the plane crash right? Some heard it or whatever, but maybe I'm wrong?

In any case, how do we know that?

Also, does it really make a difference if the plane was inverted or not? If a bird gets dizzy and falls from the sky and hits the ground, I don't see how it being inverted or not would effect the crash? I realize we arent talking about birds, but still, relatively speaking, would it make THAT much of a difference? I don't see how a plane which crashed upside down has the magical ability to bury itself in ANY surface...much less the surface which the OP has, in my opinion, CLEARLY defined as not being able to support the OS.

Waypastvne, I'm sure you are educated in this stuff, as your post would have me believe, but it doesnt seem that your post really shows fault in the OP.

[edit on 25/6/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]

Originally posted by waypastvne...The relevant footage is at 1:44...

Here is a snapshot of the 'relevant footage' at 1:44 as you stated. You are right about that, is IS relevant, because whatl I see here are MASSIVE pieces of a plane that require a CRANE to clean it up.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/89baa20484b7.jpg[/atsimg]

Also, if you look at the hole where other folks are digging, you can see other MASSIVE pieces (look like wings maybe?).

The plane is different in weight, in size, in speed, the ground composition is different (similar sure, but not the same), the temperature would affect the hardness/softness of the ground as well, and I'm sure that was different too. I'm not sure what case you are trying to make here??

I'd say the only thing this has in common with Shanksville is the angle it crashed

reply to post by P1DrummerBoy

This is a very good point. There should be SOME way on the internet to look up any and all plane crashes, right? Maybe we can get some conslusive evidence of Mr. Fox on the job. I'd be interested in looking these as well.

Actually, no, you cannot find all plane crashes on the internet, especially military ones. And with the above quote, Im not inclined to give the details. I do not need any "9/11 truthers" stalking me again.

My question is, given that thousands of pages of reports were written on each of the events of 9/11 (WTC, Pentagon, Shanksville), can you find ONE such official source or report which refers to the depressions in the ground as 'wing imprints'. If the government DOES know exactly what happened at Shanksville, as you claim (because you feel they don't need to reconstruct the wreckage), then why does not ONE source call them 'wing imprints' or similar. The answer is exactly as I mentioned before - plausible deniability.

No, I cannot find ONE official source that calls them "wing impacts" Of course I havent looked either.

Between the people who witnessed Flight 93's final moments, to the radar tracks, to the data recorders...they know that Flight 93 was intact (no shoot down), the flight controls were set to dive and the engines were producing thrust. In other words, they have all the information needed to come to the conclusion, Flight 93's end was brought about by a suicide dive.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999Actually, no, you cannot find all plane crashes on the internet, especially military ones. And with the above quote, Im not inclined to give the details. I do not need any "9/11 truthers" stalking me again.

So...do you clean up military crashes? That would be sweet, because I'm in the military, and I'm stationed at a Squadron, so we could certainly discuss this stuff.

If you clean up military crashes, surely you could tell us all what contracting company you work for right? I know for a fact that's harmless.