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.

 

Shanksville Deconstructed - Part One...

page: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


Why not "de-construct" every OTHER airplane crash that ever existed???

Because, if you look HARD enough, "you" may find little inconsistencies that pique your interest.

OH WAIT!@

ONLY 9/11 has your interest???

Please explain WHY, once again...

WHY - 'fake' an airplane crash so that the 'crack' investigators can over-analize it???

WHY - did this alleged 'fake' airplane (AKA United 93) exist at all, IF it was just going to be a 'crash scene'???)

WHY - does none of this make sense to the majority of thinking, breathing adults in the World??? (What I mean is, this alleged 'conspiracy'....and the convuluted 'resoning' behind all of it...)

WHY - does actual fact get replaced with innuendo and blatant LIES?????

WHERE - are the dead peple?

WHY - is the FDR so complete, and accurate?

WHY - do all the ATC tapes match??

I MEAN....this "alleged" 'fake' crash site is so poorly done, according to dome people, YET the rest of the "delusion and faking", to include the FDR and the ATC tapes are done well....gee, where DID they go wrong????

HOW STUPID were these 'perps'???

Fantasy, imagination and a weird wish to see what is right in front of their noses and try to make it something it isn't...

WHY???




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


This is the only plane crash I have ever seen where you wouldn't know it was a plane crash unless someone told you.

I'm satisfied with the photos because they are the best photos of the crash...

Proving that this plane crash is an anomaly...



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by hooper
 


This is the only plane crash I have ever seen where you wouldn't know it was a plane crash unless someone told you.

I'm satisfied with the photos because they are the best photos of the crash...

Proving that this plane crash is an anomaly...


All plane crashes are "anamolies", 99.999% of the time planes take off and land without crashing.

Exactly how many plane crashes have you seen? Did you know they were plane crashes before you were told?



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Well can you provide any other examples of a plane crash that a person wouldn't be able to tell it was a plane crash?

Like pictures of a plane crash that a person would not know what it was if they were not told...



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Why not "de-construct" every OTHER airplane crash that ever existed???
OH WAIT!@
ONLY 9/11 has your interest???

Considering that this is a 9/11 forum within a conspiracy website, I don't understand why you're asking that question?

I'm sure if Rewey wanted to deconstruct other plane crashes he could do so on other aviation forums.

If you're not happy with Rewey's analysis, then there's no need for you to participate in this thread.

Rewey, where is Part Two?



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 




Secondly, if I understand you correctly, you're indicating that the extent of the fuel tanks within the wings roughly coincides with the largest part of the 'wing imprint' crater. I take it that you're saying that the fuel exploding in the wing tanks is what made the crater (along with the momentum from impact), which is why the crater is not the same depth all the way along.


No. The crater was formed by momentum of mass, not explosion of jet fuel. Jet fuel does not detonate on impact. It has to be atomised and ignited and then it still expands at a speed slower than the speed of sound. In order to get a bang out of jet fuel it has to be atomized with oxygen and ignited in a container. When the over-pressure causes the container to rupture you get a bang. A 55 gal drum of jet fuel has a danger of fire, an empty 55 gal drum of jet fuel has a danger of exploding.
Taking a cutting torch to a empty drum has killed many a welder.



But others on this site (I think it was thedman, but would have to check) made comment that the fuel was thrown from the impact, landing among the trees, which explains why there was unburnt grass along its length around the crater.


I agree with thedman. Watch the video below. The plane crashes at about a 40 deg, the fuel exits crater at about 40 deg. No burning fuel touches the ground for a loooong ways after the crater. I would estimate the speed of this crash in the 300 mph area.



www.dailymotion.com...



Also, I think the crater tapering out towards the outer edges would presumably be from the 'swept wing' design that hooper spoke of earlier in this thread, and not from the fuel in the wings exploding...


The burn marks in the crater ends at the same place where the crater changes width and depth. Is this a coincidence?



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Rewey, where is Part Two?


Ditto. Rewey, please let's move on to Part Two. This thread has now gone on for 13 pages and it's never going to reach the point where everyone agrees, so it seems pointless going round in circles on this one.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Do you plan on discussing the forces acting on an inverted aircraft again? The last time we were discussing it you replaced your inaccurate illustration with a generic force vector drawing, also inaccurate.



It would be a lot more realistic if you did this to it.





posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mark_Amy

it's never going to reach the point where everyone agrees, so it seems pointless going round in circles on this one.



Well, the rational agree on a few things.

1- in the OP Rewey claims that the hole is 50'. He now admits that to be wrong, so enough said about that.

2- in the OP, Rewey gives this diagram and explanation of the crater:

"Below I have added a red horizontal line to demonstrate my estimation of where the natural ground level would have been prior to the alleged impact, based on the ground levels on either side of the crater. The vertical red line demonstrates my estimation of the corresponding point below this natural ground level, thereby showing the approximate depth of the crater. The green lines show the new ground slope inside the crater, which shows the effect the alleged impact had with the natural ground level, and helps demonstrate the width of the crater."





That's obviously wrong. I have corrected his comments. The blue vertical line is the center, the yellow is the actual new slope inside the crater.





This assymetrical crater supports the "os". The plane came down from the right at ~40 degrees, and the kinetic energy "blew out" the left side. waypastvne describes it above, and I believe this diagram gives a visual to it. The pink lines demonstrate the ke path. the dirt piled to the left, circled in pink, also is testimony to the ke direction.




3- in the OP, Rewey asks: "How could grass, which was allegedly struck by Flight 93 plunging into the ground remain undisturbed, and remain growing vertically, even on the newly-formed slopes of the impact crater? "

Towards the bottom of page 1, he gives an excellent closeup of what he is referring to:




Clearly, he is wrong about the grass being undisturbed. In this photo, I've circled in red the dirt clod that is held together by the grass roots, and outlined the newly formed slope in yellow.



It's clear that the dirt clod/grass is sitting above grade, and was definitely not growing there before the crash.

4- in the same post that provides the closeup of the grass, rewey makes this statement: "I've zoomed in here and circled a patch of grass which is clearly inside the alleged crater, RIGHT NEXT to the blackened debris/rubble. "

While it's clearly inside the crater, depth of field issues should prevent
anyone from making such a positive statement of it being "RIGHT NEXT to the balackened debris/rubble.

When you look at the photo that waypastvne supplied, there's a lot of room for that grass to be in. IMHO, judging by the depth of the crater where the grass is, it's nowhere near the burnt area. The blue line shows where the grass would be, the red shows where the burn marks start. Nowhere close.




Rewey?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Quotes

John Fleegle, a manager at the Indian Lake Marina about 1.5 miles from where Flight 93 crashes, is indoors with some colleagues, watching the televised coverage of the World Trade Center attack. Then, as he later describes, “All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/14/2001; Lappe and Marshall, 2004, pp. 35-36]

Another local resident, Val McClatchey, will report her lights and phone going out around the time of the crash. [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/11/2002]

According to Barry Lichty, the mayor of Indian Lake Borough, the town’s electricity goes out around this time. He later learns that the plane crash had disrupted service to the borough. [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/12/2001]


Fleegle will be told that what happened means Flight 93 “was shot down.” A man there who says he is a retired Air Force officer will tell Fleegle, “When your lights flickered, [it was because] they zap the radar frequency on everything before they shoot. Your lights didn’t flicker from the impact—your lights flickered because they zapped the radar system before they shot it.”

William “Buck” Kernan, a retired four-star Army general, will dispute this claim, saying, “Regarding an aircraft engaging an airborne target having an electrical disruption on the ground, no, this would not be a result of lock on or any electromagnetic pulsing.” [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/14/2001; Lappe and Marshall, 2004, pp. 35-36]


Another thing Twoofers like to use as evidence for a shoot down of Flt 93 is the lights flickering during the crash. They claim this is a part of the Target Lock, According to general Kernan this is BS.

If you watch the videos from 9/11/01 you will notice several Power company trucks at the crash site repairing the lines.





You will also notice a large chunk of debris directly UNDER a set of power lines


You will also notice how the power lines run directly through the debris path in front of the burnt and broken trees.
(red dots mark poles. red arrow marks location of debris in above photo.)




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
No grass remained undisturbed.

You're lying if you claim it did.


Sorry, I thought that claiming something I believe in is called AN OPINION.

You know, something that you contribute with on AN INTERNET FORUM, put together so people can share, discuss and debate OPINIONS.

I don't know why you struggle so much with this concept...

Rewey



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Rewey
 

Why not "de-construct" every OTHER airplane crash that ever existed???

Because, if you look HARD enough, "you" may find little inconsistencies that pique your interest.


Wow... weedwhacker, you're one of my most respected 'os' supporters on this site, and I would normally expect more from you than this post...

In response, can you point out ANYWHERE in this thread where I've claimed that Flight 93 didn't land there?

I'm merely pointing out things which I think are suspicious. As you know better than most, there is great debate over the final moments of F93. Was it shot down? Was an order NOT to shoot down given too late? Was it really an attempt to overthrow the hijackers?

I have not made any claims in support of these, or any other outcomes. I'm just outlining a few things that seem suspect to me. If that offends you, I guess maybe an internet forum isn't the place for you.

Rewey

PS. I notice you've suddenly got a whole lot of warnings - I'd hate to be the person you were talking to to earn those! But in all seriousness - take it easy. This forum is all the better from the balance of opinion and experience that you provide...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 

Wouldn't something like this be more appropriate (with lift reversed and added to the weight vector in the "inverted" case)?

fi.edu...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
Do you plan on discussing the forces acting on an inverted aircraft again? The last time we were discussing it you replaced your inaccurate illustration with a generic force vector drawing, also inaccurate.


Wow... do such obvious things really need to be pointed out to you? That diagram was used to show how force moving at an angle is a combination of horizontal and vertical forces, which vary according to the sine or cosine ratio between them.

All forces. All of them. Seriously. The fact that you needed to turn the picture upside down to see how it would work in the case of F93 astounds me. Especially given that it then demonstrates exactly what I was talking about. Are you often this late to the party?

Rewey



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mark_Amy

Originally posted by tezzajw

Rewey, where is Part Two?


Ditto. Rewey, please let's move on to Part Two. This thread has now gone on for 13 pages and it's never going to reach the point where everyone agrees, so it seems pointless going round in circles on this one.


Sorry guys - very busy weekend. Hopefully it will be up tonight...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Sorry, I thought that claiming something I believe in is called AN OPINION.



Well that would depend on the stated opinion.

In your opinion, the grass is close to the burnt area. I'd say ok, I believe you to be wrong.

BUT, in this case, it's a lie. Just like I'd say to someone who said that in their opinion the sun will rise in the west tomorrow.

To make such an outrageous claim is clearly a lie, unless that person is irrational.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Rewey
Sorry, I thought that claiming something I believe in is called AN OPINION.

Well that would depend on the stated opinion.

In your opinion, the grass is close to the burnt area. I'd say ok, I believe you to be wrong.

BUT, in this case, it's a lie. Just like I'd say to someone who said that in their opinion the sun will rise in the west tomorrow.

To make such an outrageous claim is clearly a lie, unless that person is irrational.


Hmmm... no. You see, I KNOW the sun does not rise in the west. Therefore making that claim would be a lie.

But I don't KNOW anything more about Flight 93 than you do - neither of us were there, and therefore we BOTH deduce our OPINIONS based on the evidence we see and how we interpret it.

Here's some definitions for you:

    a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "I am not of your persuasion"; "what are ...

    a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page"


Hmmm... a belief about something? Not founded on proof or certainty? Differs from yours?

Yep... I think I'm entitled to my OPINION. You're more than welcome to yours...

Rewey



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
I agree with thedman. Watch the video below. The plane crashes at about a 40 deg, the fuel exits crater at about 40 deg. No burning fuel touches the ground for a loooong ways after the crater.


Also notice the huge pieces of wreckage?

Rewey



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

But I don't KNOW anything more about Flight 93 than you do - neither of us were there, and therefore we BOTH deduce our OPINIONS based on the evidence we see and how we interpret it.


Well, you for sure know more NOW than you did before you started this thread.

Remember the 50' wide crater? It was your opinion, based on what evidence that you'd seen and read, that it was 50'. NOW, you've changed your mind, when faced with evidence (thx waypastvne) that cannot be denied.

The same goes with this:




To deny that the dirt clod is held together by the grass roots, is clearly above grade, and thus was clearly disturbed since there's no way that that clump of grass could have grown to that size with the total root volume contained in that dirt clod...... is irrational.


Yep... I think I'm entitled to my OPINION. You're more than welcome to yours...



My opinion is that you're clearly either irrational, or making up lies to fit some political agenda.

You're an Australian, correct?

Are you a member of the Australian Society Seeking Help Against Tyranny?

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Joey Canoli]

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Are you a member of the Australian Society Seeking Help Against Tyranny?


Never heard of them, and there's no way I'm joining a group whose acronym spells ASS-HAT...

Rewey



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join