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: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Rewey
 

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.


OK... I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. Firsly, I have done very limited reading into Pan Am 103. I believe there would be no large remnants of wings in the Pan Am crater because the plane was blown up with a bomb. As the wings hold the fuel, I would imagine that when the explosion from the bomb ignited the fuel, which was in a sealed structure (therefore the blast had no 'path of least resistance' - see the report) the wings would have exploded, resulting in very small fragments, and scattered over a much wider distance, because of the altitude.

However, if Flight 93's wings exploded on impact with the ground, firstly, there would be a lot more pieces of the wings located immediately around the alleged crash site, because of the much lower altitude. Secondly, this explosion would have burnt large areas of grass IN and AROUND the immediate centre of the explosion. The photos show, however, that there is unburnt grass inside the 'wing imprints', which would be the very point at which the explosion would occur.

However, since you asked for more photos of larger parts of wreckage, here are some here:










You'll note that second picture shows an almost entire engine and cowling embedded through bitumen. Funny that the Flight 93 engine hit 'loosely packed' soil, and all that was left was the tiny centre shaft, shown in the famous pitcure with the backhoe...

One thing you'll also note is the massive size of the crater. I mean, it's huge. This is much more believable for a crashing Boeing than a crater 3m deep, and 50-odd foot wide.

ALSO - AND THIS IS THE KEY HERE - NO-ONE is claiming that the Pan Am 103 plane BURIED ITSELF into soft, or 'loosely packed' soil. This is the key part of the Flight 93 crash which comes across as complete nonsense...

Rewey




posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
A few more inconsistencies....conveniently brushed over by Swamp and co...

Local officials stated that crash debris was spread over a wide area. According to the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, state police Major Lyle Szupinka "confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake." The residential areas of Indian Lake range from three to six miles from the crash site. There were a number of debris fields. Small debris descended over Indian Lake and New Baltimore, about three and eight miles from the primary crash site, and an engine core was separated from the main "impact crater" by about 2000 feet.

Some officials have suggested that wind scattered the debris once on the ground, but wind certainly couldn't have blown a one-ton engine a half-mile, nor could the 9-mile-per-hour wind have blown debris for eight miles.
An article in Popular Mechanics attempts to explain the far-flung debris by suggesting that the engine "tumbl[ed] across the ground" and that the light debris was "blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash." Such scenarios are impossible given the nature of the crash, wherein the plane dove into the soft ground from a nearly vertical trajectory. This is evident in the deep impact crater whose shape mimics the cross-section of the aircraft, and by the agreement among eyewitness that the plane dropped from the sky in a vertical fashion.

Last but not least we have Donny Rumsfeld in an interview with Brigadier General James Marks aired on December 24, 2004 who said....
"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be. "

Freudian slip???

[edit on 28-6-2009 by benoni]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Debate the Topic not the member..

Semper



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Rewey
 

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

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!!!



OK... please re-read the section on the empty space, because I think you've read it wrong. I said that the weight (90 tons allegedly, based on the assumptions listed at the beginning of the report) was comprised of the actual components making up the plane. IT WAS NOT FROM THE EMPTY SPACE IN THE CABIN. That part of the report was in response to someone claiming that a 90 ton Boeing would have to displace 90 tons of soil - but this was using the displacement method for boats, which does not apply here because it was not water, and because a majority of the boat stays above the waterline. Displacement of water is a measurement of WEIGHT, whereas displacement of a solid matter is a measurement of VOLUME - ie. how much space it would take up if buried in the soil.

I was saying that the amount of soil that had to be displaced was equal in VOLUME to the entire plane, not the weight. Think about it - if you push a basketball into soft sand, you need to displace the entire VOLUME of the ball, not the ball's weight. You can then work out the weight of the same volume of sand to work out how much has to be displaced. It is going to be a lot more than the weight of the ball itself, WHICH IS MOSTLY AIR, JUST LIKE THE CABIN. Therefore, a plane which is MOSTLY HOLLOW will need to displace more sand than the plane actually weighs because, as you seem to agree, the empty space in the cabin does not make up the WEIGHT of the plane, but it does comprise part of the PHYSICAL SPACE of the plane.

I'll explain it this way - if I took a sealed, empty 1 litre container, which weighed 20 grams, and buried it in the sand, I would have to displace 1 litre of sand, not 20 grams worth. The 1 litre of sand displaced would weigh a lot more than the container that was displacing it. I don't know if I can explain it any simpler than that, I'm sorry.

I think you may have mis-read the 'cookie-cutter' part as well (dumb name, I know, but couldn't think of one better in short time). This was in response to a number of people claiming they could see and outline on the ground of a tail imprint AND a ring imprint left from the cabin. I was pointing out that a ring imprint would only be left from a hollow tube (such as a cookie-cutter), not a sealed tube (such as a plane). If, like you argue, the end of the plane was destoyed by the explosion, how did the tail manage to leave an imprint on the ground? THIS IS THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE - that the idea a tail or cabin imprint would be left on the ground is nonsense...

Rewey



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Rewey
 

Now, with the outer wall, they discovered something interesting when they started clearing rubble away. During the original construction of the Pentagon, in the haste to get the building done, the masons would stack 2-3 bricks before they put mortar down...then another 2-3 bricks...more mortar and so on...in other words, that outer wall was never as strong as people thought.

And for those so inclined, go to your local library and check out the book "Pentagon". It covers from the WW II construction up to the dedication of the rebuilt section.


OK... I've been thinking about what you've said here, and I think YOU'VE just pointed out a massive flaw in the 'official story' here.

You've just provided DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE that the outer wall of the Pentagon was only built with mortar for every 2-3 bricks, and as you say, the wall was never as strong as people thought. Working for a home building company, I can tell you that a wall built in such a way is literally little more than just a pile of bricks, as it is the bond of the mortar which gives a wall it's structural soundness.

But the 'official story' says that the outer wall was so strong that THE WINGS OF THE PLANE - INCLUDING THE ENGINES - SIMPLY FOLDED UP AND WERE DRAGGED INSIDE THE TINY HOLE FROM THE PLANE'S COCKPIT. Now you've provided DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE that says the walls were not strong at all.

Each engine had a dry weight of 7300 pounds, or 3,300 kgs. The following diagram shows that the front of the engine is well forward of the wing:




So now you're saying that two engines weighing 3.3 tons EACH, and travelling at a speed of hundreds of miles per hour, hit a brick wall which was built without putting mortar between each brick, and was not as strong as people thought, YET LEFT NOT A MARK OR HOLE, but folded up and travelled through the tiny hole allegedly made by the cabin?

We've seen the holes the engines and wings make with an aluminium-clad steel structure from the two WTCs. Can you please explain how a brick wall which was built without mortar, and is essentially little more structurally sound than a pile of bricks, survived an impact with two wings, and two engines weighing 3,300 kgs moving at high speed without making so much as a dent?

I couldn't find that book at any libraries here in Australia. If you were able to scan those pages, or link to a pdf copy of them, it would greatly appreciated.

Rewey



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Rewey
 

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.


With regards to that calculation, is that taking into account the deceleration as it hit the (mostly) immovable ground? Or is that based on the plane travelling through the surface of the earth without feeling any resistance or friction from the ground? I mean, it might take 2/10 to 3/10 of a second to pass a stationary object it flies past, but we're talking about crashing into soil here...

Rewey












posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


It is important to understand fully what happened to PanAm103. Yes there was a bomb which blew up on board the aircraft during flight. However, the blast was located in the forward section of the aircraft, past the wing tanks. It punched a few holes in the fuselage, which opened up wider in the slipstream. It also weakened the fuselage to the point where the front half broke free. The rest of the aircraft remained intact, and did not blow up in mid air as you think. It stayed mostly intact intact all the way down until it impacted into the town below, blowing up similarly to Flight93 on impact. It left a massive crater because that is where the fuel tanks in the wings and the rest of the fuselage was located. Also it fell from 30,000ft. What I am not too sure of is the exact angle of the impact of the 747 into the ground. The impact speed of the wing section and fuselage was 500mph when it exploded, leaving the crater.

en.wikipedia.org...
This part is also important to know from the PanAm103 site's crater:

As it descended, the fuselage broke into smaller pieces, with the section attached to the wings landing first in Sherwood Crescent, where the aviation fuel inside the wings ignited, causing a fireball that destroyed several houses, and which was so intense that nothing remained of the left wing of the aircraft. Investigators were able to determine that both wings had landed in the crater after counting the number of large steel flap drive jackscrews that were found there.

Wing section impact

A minute after the explosion, the wing section containing 200,000 lb (91,000 kg) of fuel hit the ground at Sherwood Crescent, Lockerbie. The British Geological Survey at nearby Eskdalemuir registered a seismic event measuring 1.6 on the Richter scale as all trace of two families, several houses, and the 196 ft (60 m) wing of the aircraft disappeared. British Airways pilot Captain Robin Chamberlain, flying the Glasgow–London shuttle near Carlisle, called Scottish authorities to report that he could see a huge fire on the ground. The destruction of PA103 continued on Topp's screen, by now full of returns moving eastwards with the wind.[14]


As you can see, there virtually nothing left of the entire wing section which impacted and created the crater. is it not safe to apply this observation to what happened to the 757?

However, the 757 impacted inverted in a nosedive. This would help direct the energy and the debris into a certain direction. also the trees in the background did catch fire from the impact's fireball/mushroom cloud.

Thank you for the photographs, as these also give us some important clues. The section of the PanAm side fuselage was part of the forward section that broke off. As you can see, it stayed relatively intact after impact. This is because it was lighter and had much less mass than the rest of the section that created the crater. The picture of the engine is the #3 engine I believe which broke off during the moment when the forward fuselage snapped off the rest of the aircraft. It impacted this engine and it fell free. As you can see, I also posted a picture of this engine from a different angle where you can see it buried itself into the ground. Remember, it was only gravity that was working on it, and it still managed to punch through the street and into the ground. At Flight93, the engine was attached to the aircraft and impacted at speeds of 500mph, and we see it buried deeper in the ground. This is just common sense by now. PanAm's #3 engine free fell, and punched a hole in the street. Its speed was lower than Flight93's impact speed of 500mph. Do you see what I am getting at?

Also lets not forget the size of a 747's wing section and the back of the fuselage. Compared to a 757, its huge! and remember too, the front section was not connected to the rest of the aircraft on impact, and yet it still managed to create this crater with just the impact and explosion of the fuel tanks. The 757 is smaller, less fuel, but stayed intact on impact, and impacted at 500mph. I wonder how much they had to remove from the crater of the PanAm103 site.

ALso this site has some good photos of the debris from PanAm103. Note: The fuselage section that is reconstructed is of the forward section that broke free from the rest of the aircraft in mid air. NOT the wing section or rear of the fuselage.

web.archive.org...

I am still trying to find the original source for the "buried" claim, as I can only find it referenced in "truther" sites. It would appear the "buried itself" claim has either been overblown, or taken way out of context. A common occurrence in this world of 9/11 conspiracies. But if you can find it for me I would appreciate it.

[edit on 6/28/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


Thanks for your question:

With regards to that calculation, is that taking into account the deceleration as it hit the (mostly) immovable ground? Or is that based on the plane travelling through the surface of the earth without feeling any resistance or friction from the ground?


My contention is that momentum and inertia were such that the impact with the ground caused fragmentation, and deep penetration of those fragments. Depending on the size, density and composition of each piece.

The airplane as a whole did not need to 'drill' into the ground. The energies expended in the fragmentation processes would have resulted in only minuscule deceleration because of velocity.

This is a much-overused visual example, but it is the only video of its kind to illustrate my point:



Now, concrete is of course far more dense than the ground, but there is an obvious corollary here. The F4 is shorter, certainly, but in the slow motion footage you can see not a hint of any deceleration.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 



Thanks for this answer, too. Allow me to clarify:

From your response:

...That part of the report was in response to someone claiming that a 90 ton Boeing would have to displace 90 tons of soil...


Thank you for showing how some "No Plane Crashed at Shanksville" enthusiasts get it so wrong, by making that claim.

However,

I was saying that the amount of soil that had to be displaced was equal in VOLUME to the entire plane...


No, as pointed out, not when it fragments into very small pieces. Unlike your basketball or 1 litre container comparisons, the reality of the B757 shattering into the ground is very, very different than the example of an intact container of mostly air.


...the 'cookie-cutter' part...was in response to a number of people claiming they could see and outline on the ground of a tail imprint AND a ring imprint...


Well, I certainly would not expect to see a 'ring imprint', and any one who does is not understanding, again.


If, like you argue, the end of the plane was destroyed by the explosion, how did the tail manage to leave an imprint on the ground?


Here, you've misread me. I argued nothing about an explosion, nor did I imply that "the end of the plane" was destroyed by explosion -- the empennage likely remained fully intact up UNTIL it followed the rest of the airplane into the impact point. The vertical fin left its mark, but then shattered within milliseconds.


Now, a word on 'explosions' and airplane crashes.

In videos of conventional airplane accidents, meaning slower speed impacts, and/or remaining mostly above ground, we see a fireball of flame as the fuel is sprayed and atomized by impact, and ignited by a sufficiently hot source. Once iginiton occurs, the fuel will continue to burn as long as there is oxygen -- kerosene is not self-oxidizing. Also, other flammable materials may catch fire as well.


Actual footage of real airplane crash, low speed:



Note how this differs from UAL93.

(BTW, you can see the pilot lost control of the B52, as the airplane has exceeded 90 degrees of bank prior to impact. This was likely from what we call an 'accelerated stall'...one or both wings stalled, even though above 'stall' airspeed, due to the angle of attack being excessive)

The B52 impacted one wing first, shattering it and introducing the hot engines to the fuel, thus the huge fireball.

UAL93 impacted nose first, almost dead on...at such a high velocity the sources of ignition (hot engines) were buried so quickly, and the fuel was splashed throughout and on top of the soil, it had the effect of pouring sand on a campfire.

EDIT to augment:

There was a brief fireball with UAL93, really more like a flash, and poof. As GenRadek points out, trees singed, etc. There's a first responder who encountered a burning tire. (or tyre). But, rubber tires burn quite readily, once ignited (like the big tire fire in the opening titles of 'The Simpsons'
)

For GenRadek: After looking into PanAm103 again, the estimation of the fall from 31,000 feet is about two minutes, for the wing section and majority of the fuselage. Simplifying it, that's about 15,000 feet per minute, which is about 3 miles per minute, so about 180 MPH -- a reasonable speed for an object in free-fall.

Additionally, the major section including the fuel hit at a much slower velocity than UAL93 and into buildings, so there was ample fodder for post-impact fires.



















[edit on 6/28/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 





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...


Good, youve found the quote used by so many truthers to support their "no plane" argument. NOW go find the actual interview with Mr Stull and either watch the whole thing or read the transcript, if that fails find one of the interviews he has done since then. He quite clearly states that the plane did crash there...just that it was completely destroyed.




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


Yes.




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


I defy you to find one instance where I said that what was left burned to nothingness. Especially since over the last several years I have posted numerous pictures of Flight 93 wreckage and stories about the families having personal belongings from family members who died on Flight 93 returned to them.





confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake." The residential areas of Indian Lake range from three to six miles from the crash site. There were a number of debris fields. Small debris descended over Indian Lake and New Baltimore, about three and eight miles from the primary crash site, and an engine core was separated from the main "impact crater" by about 2000 feet


Yes, each item of debris that was found in those far flung sites were pieces of nylon, paper, plastics....in other words, items that would float on the wind.

Then you mention the engine and the 2000 feet it traveled. One problem, it was only 900 feet from the crater. A short distance for a heavy object moving 400 mph. Actually, I think I have found your problem. You spend too much time reading conspiracy theories instead of looking at the actual evidence.


[edit on 28-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 





But the 'official story' says that the outer wall was so strong that THE WINGS OF THE PLANE - INCLUDING THE ENGINES - SIMPLY FOLDED UP AND WERE DRAGGED INSIDE THE TINY HOLE FROM THE PLANE'S COCKPIT. Now you've provided DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE that says the walls were not strong at all.


Not quite, but since you are going to stick with the "truther" stuff you have been reading, its pointless to continue the discussion because at some point you will talk about the 14 foot wide hole at the Pentagon and not understand that the total length of the hole at the Pentagon was around 100 feet.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


By the way, here is the "official" story about the damage to the Pentagon.

www.fire.nist.gov...



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I am still trying to find the original source for the "buried" claim, as I can only find it referenced in "truther" sites.

Look at the first page of this thread and follow the link to where Reheat claimed that the bulk of the plane was buried in the crater.

Here it is, I'll save you the trouble.

Now unless Reheat has his story wrong, he otherwise believes the same official story that you do, GenRadek.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Rewey
 

By the way, here is the "official" story about the damage to the Pentagon.

www.fire.nist.gov...


Sooo... the 'Official Report' into the structural and engineering failure of the Pentagon building didn't manage to notice that the external wall - the first point of contact with the alleged plane - was built out of bricks with no mortar being used?

What an awesome report!

Don't you think that key little fact might prove to be structurally fatal to a building, but wasn't important enough for the official report? Maybe the engineers didn't have library cards? Do you remember the author of that book? I'm trying to track a copy down...

Rewey



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 



...the external wall - the first point of contact with the alleged plane - was built out of bricks with no mortar being used?


I think you guys have misunderstood each other. The outer portions of the Pentagon aren't "brick and mortar". INSIDE, between rings, walls are cinder block.

Cinder blocks are actually fragile....wooden 2X4s have been seen to penetrate them after hurricanes. Karate show-offs chop them with bare hands (ouch!!)



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 





Sooo... the 'Official Report' into the structural and engineering failure of the Pentagon building didn't manage to notice that the external wall - the first point of contact with the alleged plane - was built out of bricks with no mortar being used?


And again, I am misquoted. I did not say no mortar was used, I said in places they had stack 2 bricks before laying mortar. And the first point of contact would have been the limestone over the wall.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Rewey


Hi weedwhacker,

I'm not sure, but I think we might essentially be arguing the same thing. Some of the things in the report were brought up to show how silly some of the arguments were, and to provide a number of possible alternatives, based on what people were saying.



No, as pointed out, not when it fragments into very small pieces. Unlike your basketball or 1 litre container comparisons, the reality of the B757 shattering into the ground is very, very different than the example of an intact container of mostly air.


I know - but this was again in response to the idea that the plane could travel unimpeded until the point at which the tail fin impacted with the ground. If, however, there was an explosion of jet fuel which shattered the middle part of the plane (assumption based on the location of the fuel tanks), it is not probable that the tail fin would continue unimpeded to leave an imprint on the ground (and I like to think that the photos in the report proved conclusively that there was no tail imprint left).



UAL93 impacted nose first, almost dead on...at such a high velocity the sources of ignition (hot engines) were buried so quickly, and the fuel was splashed throughout and on top of the soil, it had the effect of pouring sand on a campfire.


A couple of things here... I'm not sure what you mean by 'almost dead on'. The accepted theory is that it was at 40º to the ground, which is quite different. Importantly, anything impacting at less than 45º to the ground is MORE LIKELY to be deflected than directed INTO the ground. This was the point being made towards the end of the report.

Also, I question that fuel was splashed all over the soil, for the following reasons.

1. The only way to remove soil contamination by fuel is to replace the soil with cleanfill

2. The EPA report from after the clean-up said the levels of contaminants were 'within the acceptable limits' (which would be miniscule - only a few parts per million)

3. The official report also says that the excavated site was re-filled with the soil from the crash and excavation.

'Within acceptable limits' DOES NOT necessarily mean the contamination was removed, it could imply that it was never there. If the same soil was put back in the hole, and fuel contamination can't be removed from soil, it must mean that the soil from the site that was put back in the hole was not contaminated with fuel in the first place.

Also, regardless of the speed it was travelling, the laws of physics still apply. In fact, as momentum, velocity or acceleration are all part of calculating Force, the faster the plane was travelling, the stronger the forces acting on the plane were. I thought this was addressed in the report as well...

Rewey



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Rewey
 

I think you guys have misunderstood each other. The outer portions of the Pentagon aren't "brick and mortar". INSIDE, between rings, walls are cinder block.


Here is the quote from Swampfow:



Now, with the outer wall, they discovered something interesting when they started clearing rubble away. During the original construction of the Pentagon, in the haste to get the building done, the masons would stack 2-3 bricks before they put mortar down...then another 2-3 bricks...more mortar and so on...in other words, that outer wall was never as strong as people thought.

And for those so inclined, go to your local library and check out the book "Pentagon". It covers from the WW II construction up to the dedication of the rebuilt section.


How have I misread that? If Swampfox was implying that a bed of mortar was laid that was 2-3 bricks long, and then 2-3 bricks laid on the mortar - what's wrong with that? That's standard practice in laying bricks, as mortar takes a long time to cure. If THAT'S what was meant, then why was it brought up at all? It would have NO impact on the structural soundness of the wall. But then that's going against what he was saying in the first place when he brought it up...

Rewey



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 



If, however, there was an explosion of jet fuel which shattered the middle part of the plane ...


I'll just sat this about that; I think the speed and momentum trumps the "fireball" Any explosion, and expanding gases, wuld not be traveling as fast as the airplane...at least, after the intial burst.

AND, I think the fireball was snuffed rather quickly, compared to other instances of airplane crashes. The photo of the smallish black smoke cloud, the lack of a raging inferno....

Again, as to the vertical fin? It is quite fragile compared to other parts. Hitting the dirt, well the dirt won.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 





How have I misread that? If Swampfox was implying that a bed of mortar was laid that was 2-3 bricks long, and then 2-3 bricks laid on the mortar - what's wrong with that


Is that your way of acknowledging you misquoted me about the wall? Admittedly, it has been a year since I read the book, but they were discussing how bricks had been stacked two high before mortar was placed.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join