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: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


You'll have to excuse Reheat. Reheat has a very large chip on his shoulder, and very much feels that his opinions are the absolute truth.

I questioned Reheat in another thread about some very simple things, and even offered to debate via U2U, so as to not clog up the thread, and I'm yet to see anything from him. I think he even put me on ignore, he is ATS's Drama Queen.

Back on topic, is there a program somewhere that allows you to put in the numbers, say the weight, speed, angle, etc, for a plane which would show you, or give an approximation, of how it would crash, based on those numbers?

I know that might be a little 'out there' or whatever, but it's a very good point about the angle being 40 degress which is VERY DIFFERENT than a nose dive.




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by Rewey
 

Back on topic, is there a program somewhere that allows you to put in the numbers, say the weight, speed, angle, etc, for a plane which would show you, or give an approximation, of how it would crash, based on those numbers?


Hmmm... I'm sure there would be a program somewhere. Going by the inclined plane diagram in the paper, it showed how to use Cos and Sin to work out how much each force is acting. I guess we'd all need to come to a robust agreement on things like weight, speed, drag, and the like.

I might have a look in a physics book to find a diagram surrounding angle of impact, rebounding and reflection. It's all based on the same principle...

Rewey



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   




Could you? I'm not so familiar with that stuff, I just thought it might be possible. If nothing else, it would be interesting to see what the possible outcome would be if you could plug in the numbers.

I think we could easily come to an agreement for the numbers. Surely the OS has the speed on the plane, along with the angle of impact correct? I tried a google search but I've found 500mph...575mph...wikipedia claims 563 for the speed it was going, and for the weight it says this:

...The United Airlines Flight 93 aircraft was a Boeing 757-200, registration number N591UA.[18] The airplane had a capacity of 182 passengers, but the September 11 flight carried only 37 passengers and seven crew members. This represented a load factor of 20 percent..."

Would that be enough?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   


The OFFICIAL NIST report (link provided by Swampfox) into the structural failure of the Pentagon FAILED TO EVEN MENTION the potentially fatal flaw that the 5 storey outer wall was constructed with practically no mortar, yet managed to include an image of the plane impacting the building which showed the left engine traveling BELOW GROUND LEVEL, and carefully omitted the spools which were present on the Pentagon lawn.


And again, you misquote. "Practically no mortar" was never ONCE typed in one of my posts. Not once. Half of the mortar one might expect to find, is a long ways from "practically no mortar". The wall was somewhat strong, but just not as formidable as truthers like to proclaim...and definitely not up to preventing a fully loaded airliner from breaching it.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

And again, you misquote. "Practically no mortar" was never ONCE typed in one of my posts. Not once.


OK, look. Just because you never typed it, doesn't mean I'm not allowed to use those words. I wasn't even attributing it to you, but to the report. I'm not trying to directly quote you.

For anyone familiar with the role mortar plays in construction (as explained clearly by me before) knows that even leaving out ONE COURSE of mortar in an entire wall means that there is virtually NO strucural rigidity in the wall. You will essentially have one wall sitting on top of another wall, without being bonded in any way. Imagine therefore a 5 storey wall constructed without mortar between every 2-3 bricks. Virtually NO structural rigidity.

How about I say "A 5 storey wall constructed without mortar between every second or third brick, therefore giving the wall virtually NO structural rigidity". Would that make you happy?

Rewey



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
YET ANOTHER INCONSISTENCY WITH THE SHANKSVILLE CRASH

Here is another photo which a number of people in other threads and sites are using to compare with the alleged Shanksville crash, pointing out the lack of large pieces of debris. Even though it was created by a much smaller fighter (allegedly), if you take a close look will show THREE inconsistencies with the Shanksville site.



1. Firstly, the impact clearly shows DIRECTION. You can tell from the spray of dirt/debris that something with momentum crashed here (generally moving from left to right). This is created by the force which I explained in my report with the yellow arrow. Even though many of you claim the F93 crash was a 'nosedive', the FACT is that it hit at 40º, which means there is MORE SIDEWAYS MOMENTUM THAN VERTICAL MOMENTUM.

2. You can also tell that the crater in the middle is ALIGNED WITH THE PERCEIVED DIRECTION the plane would have been traveling. Although many OS supporters like to call the F93 crash a ‘nosedive’, in reality it was only at 40º. Yet for some reason there is basically NO direction discernable from the crash site, and the crater is PERPENDICULAR to the alleged direction of the plane (which is why people call them ‘wing imprints’ instead). This might result from a plane hitting at 90º to the ground, but the recovered FDR say that it was at 40º. A FAR MORE REALISTIC VERSION would be that F93 crashed IN LINE with the crater allegedly left behind, as this would much more accurately resemble EVERY OTHER PLANE CRASH which has left a crater behind.

3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, no-one is claiming they can see a clear or discernable ‘imprint’ left behind by a part of the plane, like a tail fin, wing, engine or nosecone. Why? Because that is clearly nonsense. Yet there are STILL ‘OFFICIAL STORY’ SUPPORTERS who claim to be able to see a clear imprint of the tail fin from F93, even though when shown from a different angle, the ‘imprint’ line is not even straight, and is tens of metres long.

Rewey



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
MY GOODNESS - YET ANOTHER INCONSISTENCY

Why do I think it’s ludicrous that tiny fragments of plane could bury themselves up to 50 feet deep in the sand?

Ask any military in the world what they use to stop bullets. SAND BAGS. That’s because the physical properties of sand are great at resisting small, fast moving objects. It is even better at stopping larger objects, due to the increased resistance to the greater surface area. This is due to the grains of sand having tiny gaps between them, which allows the sand to slightly compress, which decelerates the object more effectively than a solid object. This is why newer cars have crumple zones. A solid resisting object is more likely to shatter, ricochet or fragment the moving item… hmmm, just like what you guys claim happened to F93. Seems the ground was more solid than you think?.

Therefore, how do the OS supporters claim that small fragments of the plane were able to bury themselves up to 50 feet into the sand? Maybe they assume that sand bags actually get their strength from the cotton bag that holds the sand? I don’t know. But like it or not, sand – loosely packed or otherwise – has mass. This mass needs to be displaced when something buries itself in the sand.

Rewey



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   


1. Firstly, the impact clearly shows DIRECTION. You can tell from the spray of dirt/debris that something with momentum crashed here (generally moving from left to right). This is created by the force which I explained in my report with the yellow arrow. Even though many of you claim the F93 crash was a 'nosedive', the FACT is that it hit at 40º, which means there is MORE SIDEWAYS MOMENTUM THAN VERTICAL MOMENTUM.


And the pictures of the crash site of Flight 93 show this.


Not to mention, still trying to figure out why are you so stuck on sand........

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 





How about I say "A 5 storey wall constructed without mortar between every second or third brick, therefore giving the wall virtually NO structural rigidity". Would that make you happy?


Accuracy when I am being quoted would make me happy. As for the wall not having structural rigidity, thats not quite accurate...but then that discussion will get into vertical versus horizontal, blunt force as opposed to a focused force etc....and I really don't feel like digging out all the information again.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I'd love to. Can you recall the name?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Which name? A bit worn out from today to be looking for much.....



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Judging from the dihedral in the wing marks I would say that plane went in inverted, Have you figured out yet that .642 G,s comes from the accelerometer and the force of gravity is already factored in. It is the sum total of all the vertical forces on the airframe including lift, gravity and angular acceleration. You dont get to add, subtract, multiply ,or divide it by the blue arrow. If Ua 93 was right side up doing exactly the same thing, it would be pulling 2.642 G,s.

In the video I showed you that small plane went 4 meters into the ground.
All of the plane crashes people are asking you to look at are inverted crashes. Do you think you might be missing something


Also the corn is not burnt!



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
In the video I showed you that small plane went 4 meters into the ground.
All of the plane crashes people are asking you to look at are inverted crashes. Do you think you might be missing something


But 4 metres is a lot different to 50 feet, or over 15 metres. Hopefully you can accept why I think that's important.

Secondly, the movie clip you showed had large pieces being removed by a crane. This would be another inconsistency, for many people.

As for the corn, I don't know the circumstances of this crash, and whether there was an explosion, or jet fuel spilled all over the ground. What I DO know is that with F93, Val McClatchy allegedly took a photo of the smoke resulting from the fireball, so there should be more evidence as a result...

Rewey



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

And the pictures of the crash site of Flight 93 show this.

Not to mention, still trying to figure out why are you so stuck on sand........


Firstly, I entirely disagree. The photos of the F93 site show virtually NO direction perpendicular to the alleged 'wing' imprints'. I find that contradictory to (a) ever other crash crater I've seen, and (b) the basic principle that there was more horizontal momentum than vertical...

I know it sounds like I'm stuck on sand, which kind of makes me sound quite boring, but the simple matter TO ME is that the physical evidence which is evident in the numerous photos doesn't correlate to the 'official story'.

I guess the question is - how many 'inconsistencies' or 'irregularities' do there have to be before someone questions the 'official story'. For ME, I think I've seen enough to QUESTION the 'official story', which makes me want to see these sorts of things explained... It really is important to me...

I actually really appreciate that you've provided a number of bits of contrary evidence for me, because there are a number of questions in my mind which have been answered. However, there are still many things that are still outstanding. I certainly don't expect to convince you, and you may not hold all the answers to entirely convince me, but as long as our opinions are based on some fact, then everything's fine...

Rewey



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


What you are lacking in your mental conception of the fire is a set of inverted (thats important) vortices, set at a 40 deg angle, drifting down wind under the jet fuel and into those trees south and west of the crater. Have you noticed the large swirl scorched (not burnt) into the grass just before the southern tree line? Have you noticed the fire at and inside the tree line?

Another fun thing to do...Draw a 40 deg line through Val's mushroom cloud.


Do you understand the importance of the low vertical stresses on the air frame yet? Heres a hint Every part of the plane that is not inside the crater has an outside force on it. Lets start with the engines.

What Forces do the engines have on them that the rest of the plane does not? Why is the right engine stuck strait into the ground, and the left engine is some three hundred meters south. Rember it's rolling hard right at time of impact.

When things don't add up your leaving something out.

Edit ... And its almost always air.
[edit on 3-7-2009 by waypastvne]

[edit on 3-7-2009 by waypastvne]

[edit on 3-7-2009 by waypastvne]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
When things don't add up you're leaving something out.


OK, I'll point out what's bothering me about this notion that all the jet fuel was thrown/sprayed 150 feet into the trees...

Here's an enlargement of the fireball from the Pentagon crash. As you can see, it is RADIAL, and therefore still hugs the ground, even where it is moving in the OPPOSITE direction of the alleged plane.



Yet, in this image, which shows the left 'wing imprint' in clear sunlight (obviously, from the plane's right wing, as it was inverted), there is no scorching whatsoever of the grass right up to the crater. Before you say "but there's other parts of the ground in the shade of the trees which look different", that's true, but the fuel is stored equally in both wings.



My understanding of the fuel consumption of planes is that even though it's stored in the wings, it uses the fuel from the tanks in roughly equal measures, obviously to keep the plane balanced.

Here is the famous picture from inside the 'wing imprint'.



To ME, this shows a couple of things. The official story claims that the crater in the foreground of this photo is created by the leading edge of the wing. Yet all of the grass is shown growing undisturbed, and unburnt.

In looking at BOTH of these photos, the 'official story' seems to claim that the ACTUAL PART OF THE PLANE which holds the fuel hits the ground at around 900km/h, which caused it to explode/ignite. If we can rely on the fireball from the Pentagon photo, the blast will be RADIAL (even moving in the opposite direction of the plane travel), meaning it will also follow the ground line for a while.

Another example of this is the detached wings of Pan Am 103 - they hit the ground and ignited/exploded. Before you say "that was falling vertically, not at 40º", that's true - but because the explosion is radial, it STILL 'vapourised' houses and foundations NEARBY.

And before you say "the end of the 'wing imprints' was caused by just the tips of the wings, and they wouldn't have exploded", remember that the crater is only around 50 feet long, and the plane is over 124 feet from wing tip to wing tip. Therefore that part of the crater, WITHOUT any damage or burning of the grass, would have allegedly been created by the front edge of the wings nearly in the centre (no more than 16 feet from where the wings meet the fuselage).

Rewey



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
Another fun thing to do...Draw a 40 deg line through Val's mushroom cloud.

Did you hear that phone call to one of the Shanksville witnesses who said she knows for a fact that photo is fake? Probably don't want to use fake photos to make your point.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


My bad. I meant the name of the book (pentagon wall). I'll go look that stuff up if you don't want to



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


"Pentagon: A History" by Steve Vogel. Its a long book, but if you like details about history....this is full of them.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   


OK, I'll point out what's bothering me about this notion that all the jet fuel was thrown/sprayed 150 feet into the trees...


Couldnt have been that a building would be a little more resistant to fuel vapor than a stand of trees.....naw, that couldnt be it.




top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join