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 Two...

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Here is how I think the plane came in (red arrow):



The red arrow is the plane and the yellow arrows are the blast trajectory that SHOULD HAVE BEEN in the Shanksville field which PROVES a plane didn't crash in Shanks.


Wow. Using amateur analysis of a black and white photograph of an undetermined age, of an undertermined location with an undetermined cause to "prove" no plane crashed at Shanksville.

Imagine two cops sitting in their office. The first cops says he can't find his notes from the head on collision at Front and Main street. The second cop says there was a head on collision last month on North street, use those notes because all head on collisions are basically the same, just different cars involved.




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Wow. Using amateur analysis of a black and white photograph of an undetermined age, of an undertermined location with an undetermined cause...


We'd all be happy to hear your interpretation, hooper. Is that your way of saying that ATH911 basically has it right, but it does not apply to Shanksville?

Rew



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
For the record, I think it's quite obvious what happened in the photo. My estimation would be something like this...





The text that's chopped off says "Wings slam into ground, flattening vegetation in two distinct shapes. Wing fuel tanks explode, disintegrate plane and scatter debris. Momentum of impact and explosion throws debris and ejecta forward in traditional spray 'arc'".

Again, I'm not claiming it was an F16 that crashed there. It was seriously the first picture I found that was the right perspective.

As you pointed out in Part One, Joey, there are tell-tale signs left behind by kinetic energy with respect to direction.

In my interpretation of the photo, it is clearly left to right. In yours, roughly top to bottom (although that seems to me to have far too much debris spray behind, and far too much to one side, but not the other).

Either way, the kinetic energy leaves evidence as to the nature of the crash. Yet with Shanksville there is virtually no evidence of kinetic energy being transferred to the ground by a plane travelling at 40º.

As I showed in the OP, a plane at 40º will have MORE horizontal momentum than vertical, and roughly one-third of the length of the plane would be transferring this momentum to the ground BEFORE the front edge of the wings reach it. Yet there is no evidence of this occuring...

The 'OS' seems instead to claim that the energy was transferred directly down, therefore seeing the majority of the pieces of the plane bury themselves in the Shanksville soil...

Rewey



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Originally posted by hooper
Wow. Using amateur analysis of a black and white photograph of an undetermined age, of an undertermined location with an undetermined cause...


We'd all be happy to hear your interpretation, hooper. Is that your way of saying that ATH911 basically has it right, but it does not apply to Shanksville?

Rew


I won't say yes, no or even maybe. What I say is the material provided is not sufficient to determine anything. Are you sure this is even a photo of a plane crash?

Unlike Shanksville, I see nothing that looks like debris but I also see nothing that looks like the area has been disturbed by retrieval operations either. No tire or tread marks or that kind of stuff. Just a couple of guys standing around what would appear to be a crater. Besides the link to the site, exactly where and when was the photo taken?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I won't say yes, no or even maybe. What I say is the material provided is not sufficient to determine anything. Are you sure this is even a photo of a plane crash?


Here's a plane crash that shows the fanning out blast aftermath that SHOULD be seen at Shanksville:


CANBERRA WD991

The above crash again, proves no plane crashed in Shanks. This crash was at an even steeper angle in a field and notice most of the wreckage remained on top of the ground, mostly in and immediately surrounding the crater.

Even though there is debris in the Shanks crater (questionable debris), there is almost no debris immediately outside the crater which is impossible as the Canberra crash illustrates.


Unlike Shanksville, I see nothing that looks like debris but I also see nothing that looks like the area has been disturbed by retrieval operations either. No tire or tread marks or that kind of stuff. Just a couple of guys standing around what would appear to be a crater. Besides the link to the site, exactly where and when was the photo taken?

That photo is brought up by JREFers as proof Flight 93 did crash. Maybe you should be ask them. (I'm sure you're familiar with them.)

[edit on 23-10-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Do you think (in the photo you attached) you would be seeing the same debris field, if like Shanksville, the area directly adjacent to the point of impact were wooded?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

You saying the forest in Shanks was right up against the crater?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper
 

You saying the forest in Shanks was right up against the crater?



Do I need to explain to you the word "adjacent"? Not right up to the crater, but close. We have aerial photographs of the burnt wooded area, we have photos of plane debris in the woods, what more do I need to do to explain it to you?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 



According to simple physics, an object traveling at an angle has a combination of vertical movement and horizontal movement. Flight 93 moving at 40º means that the plane had more SIDEWAYS (horizontal) momentum than it had VERTICAL momentum.


I believe this to be at the core of your misunderstanding.

Perhaps a further examination of the aerodynamics of flight would be useful?

Just to clarify my point, regardless of the pitch attitude (which is always relative to the horizon) the actual forward momentum vector may be different. You mentioned the AOA information...you should focus more clearly on that.

(To explain the above, for more clarity: An airplane in "slow flight", and at a level altitude, can have a pronounced nose UP pitch attitude...although all of its momentum is parallel to the horizon. The AOA is the important piece here, NOT just the pitch attitude).


___________________________________________________

And, for member "Still Reasearchin" who asked about the female voice on the CVR back on page 3...that was the Ground Proximity Warning System recording..."Pull Up" "Pull Up"...NOT 'pull it up'....accomopanioed by the 'whoop, whoop' sound.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


Most comprehensive account of Flight 93 comes from 2002 article in
Australian newspaper THE AGE

Contains many details of the impact

www.theage.com.au...




To the casual eye, it looked like solid, consolidated ground but in reality the reclaimed expanse was loose and uncompacted. When flight 93 hit the ground, the cockpit and first-class cabin broke off, scattered into millions of fragments that spread and flew like shrapnel into and through the trees 20 metres away.

A section of the engine, weighing almost a tonne, was found on the bed of a catchment pond, 200 metres downhill.

Some of the plane's cargo was found intact 200 kilograms of mail in the hold, a Bible, its cover scorched but its pages undamaged and later, as the excavation began, the passport of one of the four hijackers.

The rest of the 757 continued its downward passage, the sandy loam closing behind it like the door of a tomb. Eventually these pieces and its human cargo the heroes and the cowards, as a message left at the nearby temporary memorial put it ? came to rest against solid rock, 23 metres below the surface





The scene was captured in a picture taken soon after by a local photographer, Mark Stahl. Published in a magazine commemorative book, the scene is remarkable for its total absence of urgency.

The point of impact, about 10-12 metres across, is black and smoking. According to Miller it was about three metres deep. In Stahl's photograph it looks more like an excavation.

Four men stand next to the crater, one with his back to it. Two others stand nearby, next to an unmarked Chevrolet Suburban. One of the men has a hand on his hip.





Other photos taken at the scene by Miller show a small furrow, like a hand-dug drainage ditch, running back from the crater. This was the mark left by a wing.

"It was the most eerie thing," Miller recalled. "Usually, when you see a plane crash on TV, you see the fuselage, the tail or a piece of something. The biggest piece I saw was as big as this (spreading his hands less than a metre apart). It was as though someone took a tri-axle dump truck and spread it over an acre



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Just to clarify my point, regardless of the pitch attitude (which is always relative to the horizon) the actual forward momentum vector may be different. You mentioned the AOA information...you should focus more clearly on that.




I have issues understanding this too.

From the FDR data, it says pitch is 40... or minus 40?

How does one interpret that when the plane is nearly inverted - 150 degree roll? If it was inverted, but had a ptich of + 40, would that mean that it was pointing at the ground?

And AoA was 20.... or minus 20?

And to wrap it up, if it had a ptich of 40, with an AoA of 20, and was inverted, where was the true heading then? 40 or 60 degrees down?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Most comprehensive account of Flight 93 comes from 2002 article in
Australian newspaper THE AGE

Contains many details of the impact

What is the most comprehensive account of Flight 93 from the govt? Is it more comprehensive than this foreign newspaper article?


[edit on 23-10-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Well, I found the source for rewey's mystery OP photo.

forums.randi.org...

There's a closeup of that crash crater in that same post:




And several other..... interesting posts from rewey in that thread that got completely torn to shreds. there's definitely a pattern forming here of extremely poor research skills and erroneous statements. No wonder he's been hesitant to point anyone to that thread.


Now there's zero doubt that rewey has been wrong all along. The dirt is clearly piled up higher to the top right of the photo.

No doubt whatsoever.

Retract your claim rewey.



[edit on 23-10-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

In yours, roughly top to bottom


No.

From 7 o'clock to 1 o'clock.

the close up proves it.



Either way, the kinetic energy leaves evidence as to the nature of the crash. Yet with Shanksville there is virtually no evidence of kinetic energy being transferred to the ground by a plane travelling at 40º.


The heading was 180. the debris field, burnt area, AND the heaved up dirt are in perfect alignment with this.


The 'OS' seems instead to claim that the energy was transferred directly down, therefore seeing the majority of the pieces of the plane bury themselves in the Shanksville soil...

Rewey


No, it doesn't.

The energy of the intact palne was down at ~ 40 degrees.

The energy of the pieces that resulted from the impact were sprayed as expected. At 180 degrees, downrange from the impact site.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I won't say yes, no or even maybe. What I say is the material provided is not sufficient to determine anything.


Hooper - you're smarter than that. That's such a non-commital response. Seriously - it's OK if you don't agree with Joey Canoli. Not everyone in the truth movement agrees with each other.

For goodness sakes, I have still have to be lumped with No Planers and Laser Beam From Outer Space people.

If you don't agree with Joey, that's fine. Just tell us what YOU think happened. I get the sneaky feeling you agree with ATH911 and myself.

Again - that doesn't mean you agree with everything we say. But this forum will go nowhere if you're too worried about not agreeing with what other 'OS' supporters have to say...

Rew



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Rewey
 

Most comprehensive account of Flight 93 comes from 2002 article in Australian newspaper THE AGE

Contains many details of the impact

www.theage.com.au...



The point of impact, about 10-12 metres across, is black and smoking. According to Miller it was about three metres deep. In Stahl's photograph it looks more like an excavation.


Joey, thedman is claiming that this article is the MOST COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNT of the Flight 93 crash. It says the crater is 10-12 metres across, which is 33-40 feet.

Yet in Part One you claim it was precisely the length of the width of a Boeing.

So which is it, guys? Is it the most comprehensive account of the crash, or is it made up of what Joey calls LIES?

I only ask because it also says this:



To the casual eye, it looked like solid, consolidated ground but in reality the reclaimed expanse was loose and uncompacted.


Are you guys saying that they have the visual capacity to determine that it was loose and uncompacted (whereas to the 'untrained eye' it looked solid and consolidated), but they don't have the visual capacity to determine whether a hole is 33-40 feet wide or 125 feet wide?

I think I know which I'd find easier to estimate.

Which one is it, guys?

Rewey


[edit on 24-10-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Rewey
In yours, roughly top to bottom


No.

From 7 o'clock to 1 o'clock.


Sorry - I meant BOTTOM to TOP. Roughly bottom to top (which would be 7 o'clock to 1 o'clock, as you say).

So I did understand you correctly.

But Joey, I'll bet you can't find a SINGLE person on ATS who agrees with you (except for yourself with another log-on name, of course...).

Rew



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
Are you guys saying that they have the visual capacity to determine that it was loose and uncompacted (whereas to the 'untrained eye' it lookied solid and consolidated)

They have to say the ground was soft in order for them to sell their story that most of Flight 93 was able to bury itself into the ground.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join