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.

 

It wasn't Flight 93 in Shanksville!!

page: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


I think I lost my post....(sigh)

Not sure what mikelee's original intent of the OP was.

Most of us seem to tend towards the typo explanation, and that makes more sense than to think it's some sort of "smoking gun".

The comparison of other aerospace-related crashes was made either here, or other threads.

The tragedy of the Columbia Space Shuttle was used.

But, no one went to bring the facts...I just did. (Probably switching screens, erased my composing screen...)

Here's the gist: The break-up of Columbia began at about 227,000 feet. NASA said its speed was equivalent to Mach 22.5

(suggest a Google search to learn more...)

I put that into an aviation Mach/airspeed calculator, but the result was about 3,000 KPH Not sure at those extreme edges of the atmosphere that those calculators are accurate.

Anyway, point is, the Shuttle structure was compromised during the very hot temperature portion of the re-entry. As she descended, temperatures encountered due to friction with the thickening atmosphere would diminish, and so would velocity.

Not exactly WHEN the poor astronauts were actually exposed outside the crew compartment. It is my understanding that the flight deck and adjacent seats are all in a module that, while the ship broke apart around them, would remain fairly intact, until ground impact. (It might have broken up prior to that, but it is abhorrent to disrespect their memories enough already...)

So, what I'll wrap up with is this: An object like the Shuttle, once it began disintegrating, would also decelerate rapidly, as the parts encountered more and more drag from the air.

Eventually, their forward momentum would diminish to the point that gravity would take over, and their velocity in the fall to earth will not exceed terminal velocity.

Found this calculator:

www.grc.nasa.gov...

It only went up to 100,000 feet, and the result was 1,640 ft/sec. (BUT, factors such as the surface area will affect the results). Anyway, that is the same as 1,118 MPH.

However, depending on shape and density, those figures will vary greatly. Atmospheric drag has a strong affect, too.

Everything sourced from the web states that a human body will rarely exceed about 200 KPH/125 MPH, no matter how long the fall.

United 93, in a full power dive into the ground, was going far, far faster so the impact forces, and resulting effects on the state of the remains will be different.




posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


United 93, in a full power dive into the ground, was going far, far faster so the impact forces, and resulting effects on the state of the remains will be different.








I may read , but I'll never get into a discussion with you regarding flight

or Airplanes, I believe you to be quite knowledgeable.

But after 48 years on this rock, I do have some common sense.

I realize , for whatever reason , you'll never change your stance on

the events of 911, thats ok, I won't either.

But without a reply, REREAD your above quote, you CAN'T lie

to yourself.

You really think that plane burrowed into the ground ?

I mean ..... c'mon.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


If you go back you will see that i posted the agencies. NEADS, NORAD, and the 9/11 commission.



I'm not getting sucked into the Ultima1 game, Roger. You posted the names of agencies. You did not however post any information backing up your claim that they had confused 1989 with flight 93 on radar.

You, as usual, failed.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hey, Im not Dave!!!!!

LOL...Happy New Year Weed



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48


You really think that plane burrowed into the ground ?

I mean ..... c'mon.


This statement alone shows that even after 8 years, people have not bothered to source or READ what really happened. Why do people continue to have this belief that an somehow the plane burrowed into the ground? Do you take lessons about physics from Wile E Coyote?

IT DID NOT burrow into the ground. It broke up when it crashed into the ground into thousands of pieces, most of which were found in the crater.

This is not a cartoon. You will not see a plane sticking out of the ground. Nor will you find a plane buried in the ground.

Do we really need to show this over and over again?
www.youtube.com...


Impact at 500 mph will leave nothing resembling a plane. Parts will be left behind, but a plane. No.


It feels like we have to repeat this over and over again.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl

Originally posted by Sean48


You really think that plane burrowed into the ground ?

I mean ..... c'mon.


This statement alone shows that even after 8 years, people have not bothered to source or READ what really happened. Why do people continue to have this belief that an somehow the plane burrowed into the ground? Do you take lessons about physics from Wile E Coyote?

IT DID NOT burrow into the ground. It broke up when it crashed into the ground into thousands of pieces, most of which were found in the crater.

This is not a cartoon. You will not see a plane sticking out of the ground. Nor will you find a plane buried in the ground.

Do we really need to show this over and over again?
www.youtube.com...


Impact at 500 mph will leave nothing resembling a plane. Parts will be left behind, but a plane. No.


It feels like we have to repeat this over and over again.


The plane pitched , then rolled belly up. It hit nose first ... like a lawn

dart.... digging more than 30 feet into the Earth, which was spongy from the old mine work.
Pittsburgh Live 9/11/02

The FDR recovered 15 ft underground, the CVR at 25 feet underground.

Your up Road Runner



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48



The plane pitched , then rolled belly up. It hit nose first ... like a lawn



supported by the FDR.
FDR and CVR also shows that the plane was working accordingly all the way until impact. so that NEGATES it being shot down (if it was hit by a missile, the FDR would have registered it)



dart.... digging more than 30 feet into the Earth, which was spongy from the old mine work.


Doubt a plane has the ability to dig. It did hit the earth at over 500 mph. The force of the impact obliterated the plane, and sent debris over a 500 yard area and into the ground .


The FDR recovered 15 ft underground, the CVR at 25 feet underground


Which should be expected since the FDR is at the back of the plane and the CVR is in the cockpit. so the CVR would be deeper in to the ground than the FDR.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
I'm not getting sucked into the Ultima1 game, Roger. You posted the names of agencies. You did not however post any information backing up your claim that they had confused 1989 with flight 93 on radar.


So you are are going to be too immature to accept and admit to the facts and evidence i have posted?



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


I am stating there are not as many large recognizable plane parts as should be wiith a much larger plane.




That jet crashed after it ran out of fuel.

No fuel = no fuel deflagration at impact.

No deflagration = less shredding of plane parts and less dispersion of those parts..

Mystery solved.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


Flight 93 was confused on radar for Flight 1989 as confirmed by several agencies.



Mr. Misner, you have listed 3 agencies. What did they say? You have failed to produce a source. This is the last time I ask you, then you go on ignore.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


Flight 93 was confused on radar for Flight 1989 as confirmed by several agencies.



The people watching the scopes became confused.

The radar hardware was never confused, and kept records of its never broken tracking of 93.

Therefore, 93 was always tracked.

Rational people realize this simple truth.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Mr. Misner, you have listed 3 agencies. What did they say? You have failed to produce a source. This is the last time I ask you, then you go on ignore.


You have ignored the posts with what was stated.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The people watching the scopes became confused.


Thanks for agreeing with me that 98 was confused for 1989.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The people watching the scopes became confused.


Thanks for agreeing with me that 98 was confused for 1989.



Thank you for implying, by way of not countering, that you agree that the radar records show that 93 was tracked all the time.

Will this be the last time we hear of this from you?



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by REMISNE


Flight 93 was confused on radar for Flight 1989 as confirmed by several agencies.



The people watching the scopes became confused.

The radar hardware was never confused, and kept records of its never broken tracking of 93.

Therefore, 93 was always tracked.

Rational people realize this simple truth.


Joey,

I am not aware of anyone being confused with the radar. Transponders for both 1989 and 93 were on until 9:40:03 when flight 93 shut theirs off. This was done while 93 made its drastic, surprising turn. With 1989's transponder on for the duration of the flight, I find it hard to believe there was confusion with the radar.

Again, the confusion (until 9:40:03) was which craft was hijacked.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

By M.R. Kropko The Associated Press OBERLIN, Ohio - Air traffic controllers believed they had a hijacked plane in the air over Ohio on Sept. 11. They just didn't know which plane. During tense moments that morning at Cleveland Air Route Traffic Control Center, the first guess was that Delta Flight 1989 was hijacked, not United Airlines Flight 93. “We knew right away we had a problem. The first thought was, "Is that Delta 1989?' ” said Rick Kettell, manager of the Federal Aviation Administration's busiest regional center. Mr. Kettell talked Tuesday about the drama of the day for the air traffic controllers who had the last contact with United Flight 93 before it crashed in Pennsylvania. The center, about 35 miles southwest of Cleveland, guides planes at high altitude as they fly over portions of seven states: New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan.


Link to story of confused ATC here



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

Air traffic controllers believed they had a hijacked plane in the air over Ohio on Sept. 11. They just didn't know which plane.




Thank you Mike! My point exactly. The confusion was which plane was hijacked. NOT confusion on the radar, as Misner stated.

Bottom line... 93 was tracked on radar for it's entire flight!



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Will this be the last time we hear of this from you?



Originally posted by ImAPepper
Bottom line... 93 was tracked on radar for it's entire flight!


I have shown with evidence and document that 93 and 1989 crossed paths and were confused.



[edit on 2-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


Flight 93 was confused on radar for Flight 1989 as confirmed by several agencies.




CONFUSED ON RADAR is what you said Roger. Please quote the agencies verbatim with sources. 1989's transponder was on for the duration of it's flight.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

CONFUSED ON RADAR is what you said Roger. Please quote the agencies verbatim with sources. 1989's transponder was on for the duration of it's flight.


How many more times am i going to ahve to post facts and evidence before you can be adult enough to accept and admit to it?

www.oredigger61.org...
The 9-11 Commission Staff sorted this out in the primary source information–tapes, transcripts, logs and radar. Concerning the latter, we tailored a radar video, isolating just the two tracks, Delta 1989 and United 93, so that we could demonstrate to NORAD officials at every echelon that their story that the observed United 93 ‘meandering’ in the skies was, in fact, their watching the flight path of Delta 1989. No one at any NORAD echelon disagreed with our findings.

pilotsfor911truth.org...
Most of the confusion around flight 93 and 1989 was due to the fact that the hijackers on 93 had disabled the transponder that gives air-traffic control the plane's number and altitude (possibly more information). Without this information they were a blip on a 2 dimensional screen. 93 supposedly came within a couple of miles of 1989 before turning and heading for DC which confused ATC.


[edit on 2-1-2010 by REMISNE]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join