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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   

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

Right...

So an Aussie newspaper journo is to be believed as the best resource there is for the alleged Shanksville crash?

I find it amusing that some official government story believers can't see the irony in their claim that an Aussie newspaper is to be believed as an authorative piece of fact.

So much for a proper investigation by official US government officials, if an Aussie newspaper can do better!!!

Hahaha... oh, please...

[edit on 24-10-2009 by tezzajw]




posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(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).


Hi weedwhacker - was hoping you'd drop by.

I get what you're saying - a plane could be travelling in a perfectly horizontal line, but with a nose-up pitch of, for arguments' sake, 10º.

That means according to my means of calculation in the OP, although according to the FDR pitch angle of 10º it would have SOME component of vertical force, in reality it would have none, because relative to the ground it is moving perfectly horizontally.

But I have a couple of issues here. You could probably help more than most others...

1. Think about the above situation being inverted. If the plane is upside-down at FDR pitch of 40º, yet in reality the horizontal momentum is the equivalent of 10º LESS, that would mean the horizontal momentum would be the equivalent of travelling at 30º, thus giving the plane even MORE horizontal momentum. Wouldn't it?

2. Although a plane traveling at a slower speed would require the higher pitch to travel perfectly horizontally, due to the slower air movement above and beneath the wings, Flight 93 was allegedly travelling at over 500mph, so wouldn't this mean there wouldn't need to be a 'pitch correction' (I'm sure pilots have a better term for it), and therefore wouldn't that make the FDR pitch angle of 40º a lot more accurate?

3. If the terrorists were attempting to crash into the ground and had inverted the plane, would they really be concerned with correcting the pitch to fly horizontally? Surely this means that although normal pilots in normal circumstances are CAPABLE of adjusting the pitch to help them, in this case it would be the furthest thing from the terrorists minds, thus again making the FDR pitch angle more accurate?

Rewey



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

NTSB Identification: DCA01MA065.

Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in Shanksville, PA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/7/2006
Aircraft: Boeing 757, registration: N591UA
Injuries: 44 Fatal.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.

Looks like we'll never get any answers from our trusted government. Doesn't this bother you skeptics?



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   




Why would the NTSB open a public docket on a criminal matter. They are a SAFETY agency. Not a criminal investigation body. I have all the answer I need.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


I'll see what I can do to explain, seeing as how I have no graphics to use, nor hand motions to demonstrate...


1. Think about the above situation being inverted. If the plane is upside-down at FDR pitch of 40º, yet in reality the horizontal momentum is the equivalent of 10º LESS, that would mean the horizontal momentum would be the equivalent of travelling at 30º, thus giving the plane even MORE horizontal momentum. Wouldn't it?



No, not necessarily. Best example I think I can use is to think of something like an arrow, traveling in an arc. Naturally, arrows don't have flight control surfaces to alter there trajectories, so the arcing is solely due to gravity. It is also fair to say that, in the case of the arrow the angle of the impact with Earth's surface will vary depending on its relative angle when released, yes? For simplicity, IF you shot an arrow UP at a 40-degree angle, over a flat plane it will arc over and land at about a 40-degree angle as well -- about 90-degrees out-of-phase with the release orientation...(physicists might quibble on that, but I'm just exampling here...)

Point is, the arrow has much more forward momentum, due to velocity, then it has other direction vector velocity (vertical or horizontal).

The airplane, level at 2500 feet (or so) above ground, has a certain forward (horizontal) momentum, at its given speed. Altering the trajectory simpply aims that momentum in a new direction...AND with the help af gravity, it accelerated as well until impact.

What we would NOT expect to see, though, because of the short time interval from moment of the nose impact, until the entire last piece of the fuselage hits, is ANY left-over horizontal directional vectors having time to influence the individual components. They are, firstly, attached as a unit, so won't instantly break free and try to follow horizontally (although some might) and you also have to consider the MASS of each individual piece IF it breaks loose in some way during impact sequence....the majority of the momentum vector is in line with the fuselage (the axis of the airplane) and altering direction is easier for lesser masses than heavier masses.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Much of the earliest and best reporting on Shanksville came from
PITTSBURG POST-GAZETTE, largest city near Shanksville.

The AGE did a followup article in Sept 2002 - contains number of quotes
and details from Wallace Miller about Flight 93 crash and operations
during recovery



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 



3. If the terrorists were attempting to crash into the ground and had inverted the plane, would they really be concerned with correcting the pitch to fly horizontally? Surely this means that although normal pilots in normal circumstances are CAPABLE of adjusting the pitch to help them, in this case it would be the furthest thing from the terrorists minds, thus again making the FDR pitch angle more accurate?


I don't know WHY they chose to do it the way they did. These were not rational people.

Oh, your question: Of course they wouldn't both to roll inverted, THEN try to remain at altitude. I truly doubt any of them had any aerobatic experience, anyway...it is extremely odd the first times you learn aerobatics, after you've been so used to "normal" flying. I'm sure by now you've all seen the roll that "Tex" Johnson (Boeing's chief test pilot in the 1960s) did with the B707 demo, right? Not that he needed to demonstrate the airplane's abilities, there were plenty of buyers already lined up. Of course, any pilot knows that the roll he did was a "one-g" maneuver, but still impressive nonetheless. (At my company, MANY years before I was there, anecdote about a crew who rolled a B727 the same way....TWICE!! They were 'deadheading' an empty -- except for cabin crew -- airplane back to Los Angeles. F/As were asleep, except ONE woke up on the second roll, looked out the window and...well, you can guess they got into trouble!)

Back to UAL93.

These monsters felt that the jig was up. They knew they were outnumbered, and once the passengers broke in, they were dead meat. Speculating, but it seems to me they didn't want to die at the hands of "infidels", but by their own hands, and to take victims as well. They made the decision, it seems, that their primary target was now out of the question, being too far away.

What non-pilots don't realize is, an airplane WILL come out of the sky much, much faster in the hard roll-over and dive, than just a simple "push-the-nose-down" stunt. Pushing forward HARD will result in 'negative' g...so what? Who cares, we're going to crash anyway...but it takes longer, and is just not as intuitive, to a pilot (if you can ever say that crashing is intuitive...we try to avoid that...).

Also, as part of the roll to nearly inverted, IF they continued with 'back pressure' on the elevators --- (term we use for flight controls...'pressure'...because it's how we describe it) --- by continuing the UP elevator input, while inverted, it will result in the nose tending to go more vertical, sooner.

Besides the FDR pitch and roll information, it would be useful to find out the control wheel movements, and corresponding control surface deflections...to determine whether they were 'pulling' back for UP elevator to "finish it off" as they said.....



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Why would the NTSB open a public docket on a criminal matter. They are a SAFETY agency. Not a criminal investigation body.

You mean like this one?


NTSB Identification: DCA88MA008 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 34799.
Scheduled 14 CFR PACIFIC SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
Accident occurred Monday, December 07, 1987 in SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 1/4/1989
Aircraft: BRITISH AEROSPACE BAE-146-200, registration: N350PS
Injuries: 43 Fatal.

A RECENTLY DISCHARGED USAIR EMPLOYEE BOARDED PSA FLT 1771 AFTER HAVING LEFT A GOODBYE MESSAGE WITH FRIENDS. HE BYPASSED SECURITY AND CARRIED ABD A BORROWED 44 CALIBER PISTOL. A NOTE WRITTEN BY THIS PSGR, FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE, THREATENED HIS FORMER SUPERVISOR AT USAIR, WHO WAS ABOARD THE FLT. AT 1613, THE PLT RPTD TO OAKLAND ARTCC THAT HE HAD AN EMERGENCY AND THAT GUNSHOTS HAD BEEN FIRED IN THE AIRPLANE. WITHIN 25 SECONDS, OAKLAND CTR CONTROLLERS OBSERVED THAT PSA 1771 HAD BEGUN A RAPID DESCENT FM WHICH IT DID NOT RECOVER. WITNESSES ON THE GND SAID THE AIRPLANE WAS INTACT AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF FIRE BEFORE THE AIRPLANE STRUCK THE GND IN A STEEP NOSE-DOWN ATTITUDE. THE CVR TAPE REVEALED THE SOUNDS OF A SCUFFLE AND SEVERAL SHOTS WHICH WERE APPARENTLY FIRED IN OR NEAR THE COCKPIT. THE PISTOL WAS FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE WITH 6 EXPENDED ROUNDS. FAA RULES PERMITTED AIRLINE EMPLOYEES TO BYPASS SECURITY CHECKPOINTS.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
CONTROL INTERFERENCE..INTENTIONAL..PASSENGER
SABOTAGE..INTENTIONAL..PASSENGER
EMOTIONAL REACTION..PASSENGER


Contributing Factors

SECURITY..INADEQUATE..COMPANY/OPERATOR MANAGEMENT
PROCEDURE INADEQUATE..COMPANY/OPERATOR MANAGEMENT
INSUFF STANDARDS/REQUIREMENTS,OPERATION/OPERATOR..FAA(ORGANIZATION)


www.ntsb.gov...



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

What government report has the most detailed account of the alleged Flight 93 crash?



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

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


Who cares? You're the one looking for stars, not me.

I KNOW that I may be only sorta close.

You however, are way off.By an order of magnitude.

Again, the close up proves it.

The dirt is piled higher to the upper right of the crater. the crater shows a bend to it, like wings are/were. The ke of a plane crash wouldn't deflect that cleanly.

Or is your next argument gonna be that the Lusitania was sunk cuz it was carryibg munitions to the British during WW1 as part of the lend-lease agreement? You learned that lend-lease was during WW2, right?Hey, you're only off by 25 yrs. Big deal,right?



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
So what's the controversy of the pic of the cornfield in the OP?

The one that proves a plane didn't crash in Shanksville.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Well, I found the source for rewey's mystery OP photo.


And how many JREFers did you find who agree with you that the plane was traveling from the bottom of the pic to the top?

Big. Fat. Zero.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
No doubt whatsoever.

Retract your claim rewey.


Maybe you should retract yours...

Rew



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

And how many JREFers did you find who agree with you that the plane was traveling from the bottom of the pic to the top?



Again, and pay attention this time..... who cares? Only troofers look for reinforcement to their delusions about 9/11.

You asked for my opinion, and I gave it. You also gave your laughable interpretation. And of course you never gave a reason for the gouge to be kinked, as is clearly shown in the close up. The kink destroys your premise. A rational person realizes that if there is enough mass/energy to create a gouge in the manner you are proposing, it will NOT be changing directions.

Of course there's a reason for your dodging that inconvenient fact. It destroys your delusions to admit that it exists. Cuz once you do that the internal conflict becomes unresolvable.

Step into the light and admit your failings.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Attention Please....

The word/term "TRUTHER" is an acceptable idiom.

However the bastardization of the word "Truther" is an insult and from here on will be treated as such.

I am not going to go back and take any action on past offenses, but any future instances and action will be taken.

Thank you

Semper



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I do not know how many out there know that there was a Memorial dedicated to those who supposedly perished in that way bizarre hole. It was this 911.
There was only one supposed crash victims surviving sister in attendance, mentioned that day in all the news I could find. Does any one have info as to who else might have showed up?
I mean family members of supposed victims.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Who cares? You're the one looking for stars, not me.


That's funny coming from someone who went through and starred all of waypastvne's and hooper's comments in Part One...


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Or is your next argument gonna be that the Lusitania was sunk cuz it was carryibg munitions to the British during WW1 as part of the lend-lease agreement? You learned that lend-lease was during WW2, right?Hey, you're only off by 25 yrs. Big deal,right?


Ha! Good to see you can read as well as the JREFers! Here’s my comment from that page:


“It was an extension of the lend-lease scheme.”


Extension, as in “an act in the same sense/meaning, but not physically part of”. As in it “operated in the same way as the Lend-Lease Scheme”. Otherwise I would have said “part of the Lend-Lease Scheme”. Well done there, champ.

As subtleties and nuances aren’t your strong point, I’ll try to be far more blatant for you from now on… Probably my fault. I should have known given that you use words like 'cuz' and 'carryibg'...



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You asked for my opinion, and I gave it. You also gave your laughable interpretation.


My laughable interpretation!?! Do you remember that image I made of your interpretation? Well here’s the image of the Japanese Zero I used (a plane with considerably ‘upswept wings’, as you call it), and below it is the original image. See how much I had to modify it so that YOUR interpretation would fit?



And what did you blame it on? The g-forces?

“THE G-FORCES, BUZZ! THE G-FORCES…!”


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And of course you never gave a reason for the gouge to be kinked, as is clearly shown in the close up. The kink destroys your premise.


Actually, again your lack of reading skills is your undoing. I did fully explain why the crater was ‘kinked’. It was in a box labelled ‘1’ in the picture. You see, unlike at Shanksville, when a normal solid object impacts another solid object, there is both compressing forces AND rebounding forces. The rebounding occurs when the compression of the lighter components (like the nose cone) has occurred, and the rebounding surface meets something a little more structurally sound (like the airframe).

This is why planes DON’T hit the ground and simply bury themselves into holes which neatly fill in over the top of themselves.

Except Flight 93, of course…

Rew



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Extension, as in “an act in the same sense/meaning, but not physically part of”. As in it “operated in the same way as the Lend-Lease Scheme”.


2 points that escaped you in that smackdown you received in June:

1- it wasn't any type of lend-lease. They purchased it outright.
2- it was before WW2. Therefore it couldn't be an extension of any kind. A precedent perhaps......



I did fully explain why the crater was ‘kinked’. It was in a box labelled ‘1’ in the picture.


I agree that PARTS of the plane will rebound after it strikes the ground and disintegrates. This happened in Shankville. waypastvne showed pics from around the guy's house that was downrange of the plane's heading when it hit. More pics are available of debris in the trees between the crater and the guy's house.

Now you just need to provide evidence of something in the OP pic in this thread that would deflect debris sideways. I see nothing but dirt.



This is why planes DON’T hit the ground and simply bury themselves into holes which neatly fill in over the top of themselves.


1- are you stating that there were zero parts down range?
2- are you stating that the entire plane buried?
3- are you stating that no parts CAN bury?

[edit on 25-10-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
waypastvne showed pics from around the guy's house that was downrange of the plane's heading when it hit. More pics are available of debris in the trees between the crater and the guy's house.

Oh yeah, the debris from the American Airlines plane?


Now you just need to provide evidence of something in the OP pic in this thread that would deflect debris sideways. I see nothing but dirt.

Where's the fanned out blast pattern at Shanks that we see in the OP pic?


1- are you stating that there were zero parts down range?
2- are you stating that the entire plane buried?
3- are you stating that no parts CAN bury?

1- Can I see a photo of the engine fan that was "found" in the pond?
2- How much do you think was buried?
3- Which parts did?



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
2 points that escaped you in that smackdown you received in June:

1- it wasn't any type of lend-lease. They purchased it outright...


Hang on a sec... All the JREFers were saying there were NO munitions on the Lusitania. Now you're saying they were purchased outright?

Hmmm... that mean's you're agreeing with me on that point, which means that my 'smackdown' and 'schooling', as you put it, is from suggesting EXACTLY THE SAME THING that you're suggesting now. Oh, the biting irony...

At least the JREFers agreed with me that the plane in the pic was moving from left to right... You've got no-one on that front...

As ATH911 asked - where is this enormous spray of dirt and ejecta around the Shanksville site?

Rew



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

As ATH911 asked - where is this enormous spray of dirt and ejecta around the Shanksville site?


You've seen them in the other thread.

If you choose to deny them, then that's your problem.

Now, provide evidence and corroborating physics that will support your statement about how the gouge can be kinked as observed.

Ignoring it means you know you're wrong.




top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join