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: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
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]


That would have been the explosion on impact with the ground...as evidenced by the damage to the trees, the windows/doors blown out of the houses a short distance from the crash site.

Air to air missiles would have left a much different crash site...as referenced in an earlier post.




posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
To Swampfox

Where exactly did the wings hit the ground ?

Thanks



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


Again, you failed to read or fully understand what I wrote. I know full well how Flight 93 was, and how PanAm crashed. What created this giant crater by PanAm was the fuselage and wings, with fuel. THAT is what impacted this area creating the crater. However, good job noticing the nose section of the 747. It broke up 30,000+ft, and managed to crash in a large chunk. Now where is the rest of the 747? The nose section is but a small part. Doesnt matter that a bomb is what caused it to break up, the effect of the wings and the fuselage minus the nose, managed to create this giant crater. Show me a large piece of the wings and fuselage that survived in the crater. And dont pull up the nose. All it does is show what happens when a plane breaks up in midair. Now, if the wings separated from the fuselage they too may have survived intact or at least in a resemblance to wings. However there is no sign of the wings or the fuselage in the crater, is there?

Back to Flight93. Look at the crater. Where are the wings? The Fuselage? The nose? They are gone! Obliterated! Burned. Smashed. Now swing back to PanAm103's crater. Where are the wings? The fuselage? Obliterated! Smashed, burned! Gone. I am having trouble understanding why this simple and OBVIOUS comparison is not being understood.

The nose of PanAm103 broke off and landed largely intact. Why is that? Flight93 made a nosedive inverted, into the ground at 500mph. Nothing left of it except fragments and a crater. PanAm's wing section and fuselage also plowed into the ground at high speeds. Intact (minus the nose section). It also left a crater. What was left in and around the crater? small fragments. JUSt like at Flight 93's crater.

PanAm shows what happens when a plane partially breaks up, AND what happens when a very large section of the aircraft impacts the ground intact. Its got the best of both worlds. In a mid-air break up, usually there are larger pieces that survive intact, even on impact with the ground from high altitude. TWAFlight 800 is another example. However having a large aircraft do an inverted nosedive will leave very little in terms of debris, only smashed its and a crater. Flight93 is one example, and Flight 1771 is another. PanAm shows us what happens when a large intact chunk of the fuselage and wings impact in one piece. Its called physics. The nose was less massive than the rest of the aircraft and stayed relatively intact on impact, while the rest of the aircraft had much more mass and therefore impacted with far more force, leaving behind a crater. Why didnt the nose leave a large crater?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


Rewey, I've been trying to peruse your 45-page treatise. I'm limited right now because of my laptop, in an hotel, and no printer.

Scrolling through I spotted some mistakes, or maybe really misconceptions, off the top of my head. Pages 12, 13 and 19, so far.

Your cookie-cutter analogy is nonsense. There! I said it!

The forces involved shattered, tore and otherwise mangled the airframe in ways that are too chaotic to thoroughly describe mathematically, let alone to infer a neat, round hole being punched by the fuselage sides!

There is this continued 'truther' mantra of the "90-ton" Boeing. It seems to provide a mental image of this massive piece of metal, and your treatment exaggerated this, with your attempt to equate the volume of the airplane as significant. All of that empty space isn't part of its mass!!!

You showed a cut-away simplified schematic of the fuel system (specifically the fuel tanks) but you didn't add that the center fuel tank was not full. You could take a look at this report:

www.ntsb.gov...

Among other things, it discusses the fuel onboard. Based on the dispatch fuel load, and the estimated burn-off, the NTSB estimates about 37,500 pounds of fuel at impact. This is certainly consistent, as the airplane had been airborne for just over one hour and that is also about right for a trans-continental flight in the USA.

Both wings combined hold about 17,000 to 17,500 pounds (depends on temperature, and therefore density of the fuel) so the center tank would have had about 20,000 pounds, which works to about 2985 gallons.


Your soil analysis was thorough, and it's not my expertise so I can't comment on it, but I can ask: Would you say the soil had a quasi-clay consistency? You pointed out the excavations, with the sharp edges.

Given the tremendous kinetic forces, and momentum, couldn't pieces of the airplane carry on and penetrate the ground? I'm saying that, although we try to use other examples to try to compare, nothing really compares to this event exactly.


Someone did post a photo of Pan Am 103's engine that penetrated asphalt...and this with only the kinetic energy afforded it by the acceleration of Earth's gravity! Speaking of Pan Am, that is a good comparison to explain WHY UAL93 was likely NOT shot down. The debris field is not consistent with a shoot-down. (Of course, there could be an argument made that the airplane was hit and disabled, and impacted virtually intact, but then there'd still be other debris scattered along the ground track, from missile "strike" to impact, and none was found).

I saw your discussion with 'exceedvne' about lift components...but neither of you argued successfully, as you must take into account all of the force vectors on an airplane in flight, to include thrust and gravity (and drag) in addition to lift created by any lifting surfaces. In fact, though, based on the events as described I'd reckon the wings were'nt producing much appreciable lift...as it depends entirely on angle of attack. In the case of a roll inverted the nose will tend to drop through, and the pilots let that happen, so the majority of forces affecting the airplane in the last seconds were thrust and gravity.

Finally, I recall your discussion of the vertical fin, and your suggestion that since it was furthest aft it would have decelerated as the crash sequence progressed. I would argue that from intial contact of the nose with the ground, the entire process took between 2/10 and 3/10 of a second, using 500 MPH (733 fps) and the fuselage length of 159 feet. (Just as example)

Correct me if I'm wrong in any of my assumptions.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


wow. im not much of a 9/11 conspiricy follower, but i do read the more intresting atricles and am open to anything. This is the first time ive heard this theory, and i think ive just wet my pants laughing at it..

ludacris is not the word ....!

have none of you ever seen the wreckage of lockerbie ? when a large plane crashes anywhere over land their is carnage! period, maybe unless they crashed into a tar pit or some freakishly large plot of quicksand..



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Reply to GenRadek

You write ''Back to Flight93. Look at the crater. Where are the wings? The Fuselage? The nose? They are gone! Obliterated! Burned. Smashed. ..''

Exactly, where are they ? They just disappeared when they were approaching the ground ?
They could not have all gone into the small impact crater. Where did they impact with the ground ?

You were asked to stay on topic with flight93 but as you have mentioned the other flights, and yes, they are real impact craters. What you see for flight 93 is a joke, a complete farce.
IT IS COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENCE. Only a complete and utter idiot would believe that a 757 disappeared down that impact crater.

Lets try again : WHERE EXACTLY DID THE WINGS IMPACT THE MAGICAL PLANE SWALLOWING GROUND ?




To Swampfox

I have never seen anyone post as much drivel as you do.
You last mentioned that ''the forces involved shattered, tore and otherwise mangled the airframe in ways that are too chaotic to thoroughly describe mathematically..'' blah, blah, drivel, drivel
Here is a simple question :

Where exactly did the wings hit the ground ?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mumblyjoe
 


I ask the question because OBVIOUSLY they were obliterated. Destroyed! Shattered into itty bitty pieces! and burned! I am still shocked that people cannot even understand this most basic fact and common sense! Where do you think the wings went? Do you even understand what OBLITERATED means? How about destroyed? Smashed? Crushed? Burned? Shredded? Blown apart? Shattered? I can go on and on, since obviously you are having some difficulties trying to comprehend what all those words mean in relation to the wings' conditon after the impact and fire. I'm almost speechless at the lack of common sense here. Hmm wings, almost filled completely with fuel, impacting the ground at 500+mph in a near nose dive, and YOU expect the wings to be recognizable? I think I'm having a migraine at the supreme ignorance of that comment. Oh and where are the wing imprints in the PanAm crater? That is where they impacted too. Where are they?


And how is the comparison off topic? Is it because you are afraid to have a fair comparison which explains why the crater and debris of Flight93 look very similar to other crashes of similar types? The Mods dont think so. How is the F93 crater a farce? It looks almost exactly the same way as the PanAm crater and the corresponding debris field! I mean good gravy! You have two large aircraft impacting the ground at very high speeds, and bOTH left craters with little in terms of observable debris!

But since you are implicating every single firefighter, first responder, crash scene investigator at the Flight93 crash site an idiot, tell it to them directly, rather than posting this here. I mean obviously they all think, correction, KNOW, a 757 plowed into the ground there, so they all must be idiots then to believe so. After all you said: "Only a complete and utter idiot would believe that a 757 disappeared down that impact crater." Please go on ahead and pass that along to them. Although I must warn you, you are going to look pretty funny eating corn on the cob with no teeth once they are done with you.


And just so you know, no one is suggesting that the whole plane vanished into the hole. Apparently all the pictures of the entire debris field which extends all around the crater isnt enough for you, or the debris found farther from the crater.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
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.

Yet Reheat stated that the bulk of the plane was buried. Your contradiction with an official story believer is noted.


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
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.

Right, so we've narrowed it down to two neat parts. Ok. What length was the part that was buried under the ground? What length was the part that wasn't buried under the ground?

I'm trying to ask really simple questions now, so you won't be confused with your replies.

I don't want you to further contradict yourself, or Reheat.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 





Yet Reheat stated that the bulk of the plane was buried. Your contradiction with an official story believer is noted.


And your point is? Oh yes, still stuck on some sort of top secret team of 9/11 debunkers....





Right, so we've narrowed it down to two neat parts. Ok. What length was the part that was buried under the ground? What length was the part that wasn't buried under the ground?


Lets see, I think they pieced enough together to know that 59 feet 7 and 3/4 inches was in the crater....which leaves 95 feet 6 inches outside the crater.

I dont know the length of the plane that was left in the crater, no one does, the wreckage was too fragmented for such measurements.




I'm trying to ask really simple questions now, so you won't be confused with your replies.


Not likely that I will be "confused" by anything you do.


[edit on 27-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   




No. His point is, that there is ONE official story. ONE. Which means, everyone who still buys into it needs to have ONE explanation for everything. You can't have ONE official way it all went down, but have more than one explanation for it, at least not in THIS scenario.

On a personal note, you got recalled and had to stand duty for a year..man I feel for you there...that sucks.

[edit on 27/6/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451What Squadron? Simply stating what "squadron" you are assigned to is harmless.


Who are you?

Are you swampfox's secretary? Bring me some coffee.

The Squadron at which I am stationed is of zero importance. Also, no, it is not 'harmless' for me to give out information pertaining to my orders. That was one of the most unintelligent questions I've ever been asked.

Please don't waste my time with incompetence.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Yes, there is one official story, Flight 93 crashed into the ground outside Shanksville, PA and exploded. Tezzajw is worried if it was row 28 or row 29 that ended up inside the crater, his arguments are completely irrelevant.

As for being recalled, it wasnt bad but I will say it cured any thoughts I might have had about being a police officer.


Ah heck Trebor..here is a hint about the first squadron I served in ... "Swamp Fox"

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Lets see, I think they pieced enough together to know that 59 feet 7 and 3/4 inches was in the crater....which leaves 95 feet 6 inches outside the crater.

I dont know the length of the plane that was left in the crater, no one does, the wreckage was too fragmented for such measurements.

How does that answer make sense, Swampfox? If it is 59'7.75", then why would you state that the length of the plane in the crater is unknown?

When you state that they 'pieced enough together' are you claiming that they reconstructed the plane? If so, where is the evidence for this?

Please, keep replying. You twist yourself in knots, each time you try to explain what you think happened.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by tezzajw
 

Adds "inability to understand sarcasm" to reading comprehension issues.

You can discuss your problems here, all that you like, Swampfox. However, I would strongly advise you to send Reheat a U2U and get him in this thread to help you sort out the mess that you've created. You contradict him and together, the two of you can't provide a consistent story to explain the alleged crash site of the alleged Flight 93.

There's lots of us reading this thread who want an explanation for how the bulk of the plane was found buried in that crater. You can't get past your own contradictions to begin trying to explain what happened.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Originally posted by trebor451What Squadron? Simply stating what "squadron" you are assigned to is harmless.


Who are you?

Are you swampfox's secretary? Bring me some coffee.

The Squadron at which I am stationed is of zero importance. Also, no, it is not 'harmless' for me to give out information pertaining to my orders. That was one of the most unintelligent questions I've ever been asked.

Please don't waste my time with incompetence.



Fine. Credibility demands specificity. You have neither, it is clear. OPSEC being what it is, there is no restriction in any official guidance from any service thing that would prevent you from stating where you are assigned. If there is, state it. If there isn't, keep flying the indignant flag that someone called you out on your fantasy.

So, as things stand now, you lack any credibility based on your inability to even talk the talk.

See ya.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
"There is no plane." "Nothing, Just this hole." "...when we got there, there wasn't anything."

These words were spoken by Shanksville Mayor Ernie Stull, one of the first people on the scene....no alterior motive, simply telling it as he saw it...

Look at the photos below.....




Does any of the photos below below, given the scale of the plane above,really look right to you...??

Look at the sheer size of the plane in relation to the hole...ludicrous!!

Anything odd to you??


Try and disregard everything you know of pertaining to plane crashes....
Again i ask...
Does this scene look like a plane crash site??



Does it look vaguely like a plane crash site...??

Lots of people seem to be standing around....search party for the missing plane perhaps??
They sure dont seem to have anything to clean up in the way of plane wreck now do they??


Where did the plane go??
Where did the wings, the fuselage, the scores of seats,, the huge turbines, the luggage et al all go??

Swampfox insists they were smashed to small itsy bitsy little pieces which then burned to nothingness.....

Except for the computer chipboard found nearly 2 k's away from the above site....expelled there by the sheer force of the explosion which he then insists i clearly have no knowledge of....

However....the lovely long grass that frames the "crash site " shows no scorched earth..no burn marks which would confirm the ferocity of the "explosion".....


There just isnt any body of evidence that shows any resemblance to a crash site....nothing.

This highlights to me the blind patriotism of some....so blind it clouds their judgement completely...


Unless of course a darker force is at play on these threads.....



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
There's lots of us reading this thread who want an explanation for how the bulk of the plane was found buried in that crater.


Easy. F=ma

Force= amount of force gravity applied to the aircraft at impact (g)

mass= made up of all the aircraft parts together (i.e. not necessarily a/c weight)

acceleration = aircraft speed (can be zero or a constant number, the latter meaning there is no acceleration but this factor would apply towards the amount of force as a component of how fast the mass was moving and how that contributed to the amount of g present at impact.

If you can plug in the numbers and come up with a force that will suggest the aircraft should not have been in the condition it was in at Shanksville after impact, you win.

No whining, no backpedaling, no complaints about not addressing the OP, no lateral moves to avoid doing the math. You asked a specific question and I answered it for you. Do move on, please?

[edit on 27-6-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Easy. F=ma
Force= amount of force gravity applied to the aircraft at impact (g)
mass= made up of all the aircraft parts together (i.e. not necessarily a/c weight)
acceleration = aircraft speed (can be zero or a constant number, the latter meaning there is no acceleration but this factor would apply towards the amount of force as a component of how fast the mass was moving and how that contributed to the amount of g present at impact.

I take it that you haven't viewed Rewey's presentation in the OP?


Originally posted by trebor451
If you can plug in the numbers and come up with a force

It's your story, trebor, so you plug in your numbers and tell me the rest of your fantasy.


Originally posted by trebor451
that will suggest the aircraft should not have been in the condition it was in at Shanksville after impact, you win.

I don't see an aircraft, so how can I tell what condition it is supposed to be in? Reheat claimed that the bulk of Flight 93 was found buried in the crater.

Please, trebor, if you believe it, then show how it is possible.


Originally posted by trebor451
No whining, no backpedaling, no complaints about not addressing the OP, no lateral moves to avoid doing the math.

You've backpeddled on the maths, not me.



You asked a specific question and I answered it for you. Do move on, please?

You gave me F=ma and left it at that. No proof, no attempt to explain how the bulk of an airplane can be buried inside a crater.

trebor, perhaps you're not aware that what you try to pass off as proof, really lacks substance and credibility.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join