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.

 

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

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
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.

What length of the plane will punch through, Swampfox? You're already on record stating something like 50 feet of the plane should be found below the surface.


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, I said it making assumptions on soil composition using crappy photos probably not the best course of action.

Again, Swampfox contradicts himself. Swampfox claims that it's not possible to perform a valid soil composition analysis by judging photos... If that's the case, then why did Swampfox in the top quote also try to claim that the 'tailings of a closed strip mine wont offer much resistance'?

How would you know how much resistance the ground would offer, Swampfox? Did you perform a soil analysis?

You can't get your story straight about how much of the plane should be buried in the ground and now you don't know if you can rely on images or not.




posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
At the point of impact, virtually all kinetic energy was focused in one direction - straight into the hole that the airplane dug.

Please supply all of your equations to prove this. All of them.



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).

Another off-topic plane crash... Predictable.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Having just read thru this most entertaining twaddle from the disinfo crowd, I sense I have learnt two things...

1...The plane was inverted, pulling .46G rather than 4 to 6 G's...which caused the plane to conceal itself into a teeny weeny hole that could hardly accomodate a big 4x4 let alone a plane..

2..some planes can concertina themselves into soil at a depth of 50ft....providing the first point is applicable....


Swamp and co...I dont know why, but i get the impression that you are clutching at straws with your theories....and you know it!!

If the plane came it at such an acute angle, how did those computer chips find themselves over one mile from the crash site??The ones in Swampfox's pics he posted??
A mile( or 1.6 km's) is an impossible distance for something to be blasted...especially as not even the grassy areas around the socalled impact site were damaged...

This has nothing to do with the crash site not fitting into predetermined views of what a crash site should look like...and everything to do with common logic...

The plane was shot down....or so says the evidence....



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 





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.


I have over 22 years in the US military, split between the Navy and the Air Force. In my career, I have worked on SH-60s, P-3s, C-9s, S-3s and have worked security on an F-18 base. I am currently assigned to an F-16 wing.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


That reading comprehension thing again....




What length of the plane will punch through, Swampfox? You're already on record stating something like 50 feet of the plane should be found below the surface.


No, I said they had to dig down 50 feet to retrieve all the wreckage from the crater. Why is it that truthers act like there is some sort of "book" that says, "In the case of a 45 degree impact with the ground at 400 knots, you WILL find 90 feet of the fuselage in the hole." why is that?




Swampfox claims that it's not possible to perform a valid soil composition analysis by judging photos... If that's the case, then why did Swampfox in the top quote also try to claim that the 'tailings of a closed strip mine wont offer much resistance'?


Again, you appearantly choose not to comprehend what was written. I said that relying on photos to make an analysis of the soil probably wasnt the wisest course of action. In case you missed it, I never once said it wasnt possible, I said it probably wasnt the wisest course of action. I know you live in Australia, but come on man, the statement wasnt that hard to understand.

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   


Swamp and co...I dont know why, but i get the impression that you are clutching at straws with your theories....and you know it!!


Well, I wouldnt rely on your instincts to conduct financial transactions then.




If the plane came it at such an acute angle, how did those computer chips find themselves over one mile from the crash site??The ones in Swampfox's pics he posted??


A little bitty, lightweight chip that was onboard a plane that exploded.....not that hard for it to end up a mile away. Im going to guess you have no experience with explosions?




The plane was shot down....or so says the evidence....


Really? And what evidence says that? The witnesses dont...the data recorders dont, the condition of what was left of the engines dont...so just what EVIDENCE do you have that says it was shot down?



[edit on 27-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



Again, you appearantly choose not to comprehend what was written. I said that relying on photos to make an analysis of the soil probably wasnt the wisest course of action. In case you missed it, I never once said it wasnt possible, I said it probably wasnt the wisest course of action. I know you live in Australia, but come on man, the statement wasnt that hard to understand.

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]


How do you know this SwampFox46_1999? Is soil composition part of your Naval/Airforce training?

What book are you using? You continually accuse others of owning books about plane crashes. Do you have some sort of book you use to post online?

Why do you only hang out on the 911 threads? Is there no other interesting aspect of ATS for you?

[edit on 27-6-2009 by titorite]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


Back to the reading comprehension issues....




How do you know this SwampFox46_1999? Is soil composition part of your Naval/Airforce training?


Nope, Boy Scout merit badge. Besides, what I posted, was my opinion that using photos to develop a detailed soil analysis, probably wasnt the wisest course of action. (Who knew that simple statement would confuse so many "truthers")




What book are you using? You continually accuse other of own books about plane crashes. Do you have some sort of book you use to post online?


I'm not using a book. It is the people that apply a one size fits all approach to airliner crashes that seem to be using a book. And with the exception of books I have read for more information, there isnt a book for "posting online". I have a USB port in the back of my skull that I use for updates every night (Oh, wont THAT statement throw them for a loop)




Why do you only hang out on the 911 threads? Is there no other interesting aspect of ATS for you?


I did not realize there was an ATS requirement to post on other threads......could one of the Mods send me the appropriate part of the rules that states this?

However, to answer your questions, I do look at other threads and I occasionally post on some of them. Feel better now?

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


There is no need to be sarcastic and my reading comprehension is just fine.
I was just wondering what qualified your opinion about soil analysis.

If you wanna argue your side thats all well and fine but your belittling sarcastic tone is not.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


Well, start comprehending what is posted and then maybe the sarcasm will subside.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I have over 22 years in the US military, split between the Navy and the Air Force. In my career, I have worked on SH-60s, P-3s, C-9s, S-3s and have worked security on an F-18 base.

I don't know how lifting the boom gates to the parking lot of an airforce base makes you an expert on the alleged Flight 93 crash site, but whatever...



No, I said they had to dig down 50 feet to retrieve all the wreckage from the crater. Why is it that truthers act like there is some sort of "book" that says, "In the case of a 45 degree impact with the ground at 400 knots, you WILL find 90 feet of the fuselage in the hole." why is that?

An earlier post in this thread had you performing the following calculation 150-50 = hmm... You were implying that 50 feet of the plane was buried under the ground. You remember the part where you contradicted yourself and Reheat... go back a couple of pages in this thread and check the posts.



Again, you appearantly choose not to comprehend what was written. I said that relying on photos to make an analysis of the soil probably wasnt the wisest course of action. In case you missed it, I never once said it wasnt possible, I said it probably wasnt the wisest course of action. I know you live in Australia, but come on man, the statement wasnt that hard to understand.

Then why did you try and make a judgement about the compostition of the soil based only on photos? Swampfox, have you analysed the soil at Shanksville to determine how it would react under the circumstances of the alleged Flight 93 crash?

I'll take your answer as being 'no'. You show double standards when you chastise Rewey for attempting to make comments about the soil, based on analysis of the images. Yet, when you make comments about the soil, based on the same images, it seems to be ok.

Poor form, Swampfox. Very poor form.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Swamp...

You referred to an explosion as being the reason for the, as you put it, itsy bitsy piece of chip being found over a mile away...

Would that be the explosion the plane felt as it was impacted by the ground or the air to air missile...??

You are correct, my knowledge of explosives is fairly limited...but common sense and logic i have in abundance...and there is no repeat no evidence of your alleged "explosion" which you imply took place upon impact with the ground...

None.

So your argument makes no logical sense....



And thank you for your concerns re. my finances...


[edit on 27-6-2009 by benoni]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

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.


What Squadron? Simply stating what "squadron" you are assigned to is harmless.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

 

And then we could have pointed out that the soil testing was done after cleanup. United Airlines spent 850,000 dollars cleaning up the crash site


OK... you got me thinking about something with this comment, Swamp_Fox, and I've done some research...

From your comment and link posted, it seems that United Airlines had to spend so much money in cleaning up the site to appease some government environmental branch. How realistic is it, then, that when the strip mine at Shanksville (called Diamond T, I now know) was decommissioned, the mine operators simply poured in truckloads of soft sand, and everyone shook hands and walked away. In short, not realistic at all, because in decommissioning the mine, the same government environmental branch would have to be satisfied that VERY STRICT decommissioing requirements had been met.

I looked it up. It's covered by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 1977 (SMCRA), and administered by the Office of Surface Mining. This is just one of the 60 Federal laws and regulations which must be adhered to which apply specifically to coal mining. The entire list of laws and regulations is here:

teeic.anl.gov...

One of the requirements of the Act is the preparation (BEFORE mining even starts) of a reclamation plan, which needs to be assessed and approved. To quote: "The broad objectives of the rehabilitation program were to eliminate soil and water pollution on and around the site, and to produce a STABLE LANDFORM with a self-sustaining vegetative cover…"

The reclaiming of the decommissioned strip mine would have been under strict Federal laws surrounding strip mining activities. For the 'Official Story' to continue to claim that the ground was 'loosely packed' or 'soft' because of an old strip mine that used to operate is completely ignoring the masses of Federal laws and regulations which would have ensured that the area was returned to its PRE-MINING STATE (which is a term used throughout the legislation).

These legislative requirements for decommissioning a strip mine IN PENNSYLVANIA can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30, Volume 3, Part 398 Pennsylvania.

"Section 938.1 SCOPE - This part contains all rules applicable only within Pennsylvania that have been adopted under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977".

I know I said I'd revise my original paper to remove some of the Pentagon stuff, and add the carbon fibre tail fin, but this has GOT to go in as well, because it shows that one of the 60 Federal laws surrounding strip mines required the land to be returned to its PRE-MINING STATE when the mine was closed. This is in DIRECT contradiction to the 'official story'.

Rewey



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
So I suppose the Pan Am 103 crater was also faked. I mean can any one find any large chunks of it inside? All I see is a crater! Where is the the entire wing section and fuselage from the 747??

thewebfairy.com...









And how did this engine manage to punch a hole through a street?? It must have been planted.






now all kidding aside, does any one notice any similarities to the crater of the 747 and the Flight93 crater? Remember that the crater was created by a large section of fuselage and the wings impacting the ground at high speeds in the PanAm case. Its very similar to the Shanksville crater.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
And because I enjoyed reading about mine decommissioning so much, I thought I'd ad this next bit so other people didn't have to do all the reading that I've done...



Reclamation

Reclamation is the process of restoring disturbed land as closely as possible to its original condition when mining is finished.

All mine sites must be reclaimed according to applicable governmental regulations. This typically involves a number of activities including: re-shaping the land, restoring topsoil, and planting native grasses, trees or ground cover. Reclamation is done according to the approved closure and reclamation plan, which must be continuously updated by the mining company and approved by the responsible government agency.




What is a Mine Closure and Reclamation Plan?

Planning for mine closure starts during mine planning... Under existing legislation, mine owners must submit a mine closure and reclamation plan to the [state] and/or federal government. The government must approve the initial closure and reclamation plans before any mine development work can begin. However, the development of final plans may take years of study and detailed engineering before being completed. The company must also put up money (e.g., a deposit or bond) to make sure that it can complete the reclamation, including shut-down, closure and post-closure. The financial assurance may be a few million dollars for a small mine or over $100 million for a large mine. The deposit makes sure that the government will not be left with the responsibility of paying for a mine closure as has happened in the past because abandoned mines become property of the governments.

A mine closure and reclamation plan for any mine is site-specific. It details how the mining company will close the mine site and return the surrounding land, as closely as possible, to its pre-mining state.


Therefore, there is no way that the surrounding soil from the alleged Flight 93 crash would have been the 'loosely packed' remains of the old strip mine. The mine would have had Federal regulations applied during decommissioning to return it to its pre-mining state. This confirms again for me that the official story is nonsense...

Rewey



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So I suppose the Pan Am 103 crater was also faked. I mean can any one find any large chunks of it inside? All I see is a crater! Where is the the entire wing section and fuselage from the 747??



OK - this is REALLY the wrong example to use. Firstly, read a bit about the circumstances of the Pan Am 103 tragedy:



On Wednesday, December 21, 1988, the aircraft flying this route—a Boeing 747-121 named Clipper Maid of the Seas—was destroyed by a bomb, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members. Eleven people in Lockerbie, south Scotland, were killed as large sections of the plane fell in and around the town, bringing total fatalities to 270.



Here is a photo of half of the cockpit which fell:








So if you want to compare this to Flight 93, are you suggesting it blew up in mid-air? By a bomb? Was it shot down? What are you saying?

Rewey

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Rewey]

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Rewey]

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Rewey]

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
 


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



Here's some more on soil analysis for you...



Color is one of the most easily determined soil properties and other more important soil characteristics can be inferred from soil color.




Soil color comes from a multitude of things, most likely, the chemical composition depending on where in the country you are located. 'Ultisols' tend to be high in red hues (10YR, 5R). This is from the iron in the soil.

Soil color is used by USDA to as a series criteria in the range of characteristics, in order to help farmers or users identify soils. Redoximorphic features will be colored reds and greys, and is from the direct reduction and oxidation of iron in the soil.


So, you ask, where in the US can I find 'utisols'? Well, I'm glad you asked. Here is a map showing the location of utisols in the US. You'll note that there is a large presence of utisols in Pennsylvania (all of those suborders are types of utisols).




So why is this important? If you remember in my report, I mention that the 'boondies' which form in the soil (compressed cakes of sand) are formed due to the presence of iron oxide. The info above shows that utisols are red because of their high content of iron oxide. The map above shows that huge areas of Pennsylvania, particularly surrounding the Shanksville site, are heavy in utisols.

So when you say it's not the best course of action to use 'crappy pics' for a soil analysis, I say you're wrong. The above shows that my analysis of the soil in the paper was ABSOLUTELY consistent with the soil in Pennsylvania, and most notably around the Shanksville site.

This further confirms for ME that the official story is nonsense...

Rewey



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 





I don't know how lifting the boom gates to the parking lot of an airforce base makes you an expert on the alleged Flight 93 crash site, but whatever...


I dont know why reading comes so hard for some. Someone was wanting information about where I've worked, I provided it. Ive never lifted a boom gate on an Air Force base. The majority of my career has been spent in aviation maintenance. However I did spend a year as a military police officer on a Navy base after 9/11 on Presidential recall orders.




An earlier post in this thread had you performing the following calculation 150-50 = hmm... You were implying that 50 feet of the plane was buried under the ground. You remember the part where you contradicted yourself and Reheat... go back a couple of pages in this thread and check the posts.


Once again, you do not pay attention. Titorite was talking about the plane being completely buried. I was pointing out that the crater was too shallow for the plane to have completely buried itself. In addition, in another post I stated that a large part of Flight 93 was recovered from the crater and that the remaining part was scattered to hell and back by the explosion.




Then why did you try and make a judgement about the compostition of the soil based only on photos? Swampfox, have you analysed the soil at Shanksville to determine how it would react under the circumstances of the alleged Flight 93 crash?


Umm, once again.....

Anyway, I did not make a judgement about the composition, other than stating "tailings of a closed strip mine"....which it is. I cautioned against using only photos to judge the soil and I clearly stated that I have not visited the crash site to make an analysis.





[edit on 27-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
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.*

When it crashed, UA93 was INVERTED and pulling only .64 (point six four) Gs positive... 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.


OK - there's a couple of things wrong with what you say.

Firstly, of course planes can fly INVERTED - I saw it on Top Gun (ha ha - sorry, couldn't resist).

Secondly, you need to consider the direction of lift created by wings. You say the direction of lift is normally upwards. This is correct - lift acts perpendicular to the plane. For a plane sitting on its wheels on the runway, the lift vector of the plane is directly upwards. It has no forward component - this is ONLY provided by the engines.

Therefore, if Flight 93 was inverted at 40º, the lift vector is STILL acting perpendicular to the plane, which means it is REALLY acting at 50º to the ground, not directly down. IMPORTANTLY, the magnitude of this vector increases with the plane's speed.

What does this mean for Flight 93? It means that all of the lift created by the movement of the wings acts more like the BLUE force in my paper, trying to turn Flight 93 further onto its back. It DOES NOT in any way contribute to the RED force, as you claim, in pushing the plane further into the ground.

Therefore, the lift of the plane contributed NOTHING to the kinetic energy pushing the plane into the ground, as you claim. That's just incorrect physics...

Rewey



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join