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.

 

What was the average size of the alleged excavated UA93 debris?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Why are you asking people on a conspiracy theory website?

Sorry, I thought you skeptics were smart enough.


For those that don't know. All the above mentioned were first responders to the scene. They have all been interviewed and all talk of plane debris and body parts. They talk of the strong smell of jet fuel.

And NONE of them would know anything about the alleged excavated debris.




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
My question is, what was the average size of the alleged excavated plane debris?


My question is, who the flip cares what the average size of the plane debris is? The thing crashed headlong into the ground so it's obvious ugly, ugly things are going to happen to it.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

My question is, who the flip cares what the average size of the plane debris is?

Because you skeptics are using the meme of "reduced to mostly small debris" as evidence nothing is fishy about the crash, but I'm not sure that meme applies to the alleged excavated debris. Just want to be clear, that's all. Is there a problem with being clear about the supposed facts of the incident?


The thing crashed headlong into the ground so it's obvious ugly, ugly things are going to happen to it.

It didn't crash nose first, officially. See, this is why I ask questions, because you skeptics don't even know all the "facts."



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Because you skeptics are using the meme of "reduced to mostly small debris" as evidence nothing is fishy about the crash, but I'm not sure that meme applies to the alleged excavated debris. Just want to be clear, that's all. Is there a problem with being clear about the supposed facts of the incident?


Seen a jet reduced to fragments - largest piece 2 x 3 section of tail and landing gear light only recognizable
pieces.

In a high speed crash much of the aircraft structure and contents (that includes people too) are smashed in
relatively small pieces of a foot or less. Often will be some larger pieces that survive the chaotic disassembly

On flight 93 a 7 foot section of fuselage was recovered from woods. jet engine was dug up from the impact crater

Every crash is different too



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Because you skeptics are using the meme of "reduced to mostly small debris" as evidence nothing is fishy about the crash, but I'm not sure that meme applies to the alleged excavated debris. Just want to be clear, that's all. Is there a problem with being clear about the supposed facts of the incident?


You and I both know you have zero expertise in the field of crash site forensics and you wouldn't know whether aircraft should crumple like a beer can, shatter like a mirror, or disappear into a worm hole to another dimension. You're not asking because you legitimately want to know more about the physical procession of the impact. You're asking because you want to drop innuendo of impropriety among people who likewise have zero expertise in crash site forensics.


The thing crashed headlong into the ground so it's obvious ugly, ugly things are going to happen to it.

It didn't crash nose first, officially. See, this is why I ask questions, because you skeptics don't even know all the "facts."

Are you genuinely attempting to argue over what the definition of "nose first" is now?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

In a high speed crash much of the aircraft structure and contents (that includes people too) are smashed in
relatively small pieces of a foot or less. Often will be some larger pieces that survive the chaotic disassembly

I'm not questioning a plane crash wouldn't do that.


jet engine was dug up from the impact crater

Yeah, funny that was the ONLY thing photographed allegedly being unearthed when tons and tons of debris supposedly was!


Every crash is different too

And that's my point, was the alleged tons and tons of excavated debris reduced to small pieces to, or not?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

You and I both know you have zero expertise in the field of crash site forensics and you wouldn't know whether aircraft should crumple like a beer can, shatter like a mirror, or disappear into a worm hole to another dimension. You're not asking because you legitimately want to know more about the physical procession of the impact. You're asking because you want to drop innuendo of impropriety among people who likewise have zero expertise in crash site forensics.

How much of an expert do you need to be to observe the average size of the wreckage remains? The "reduced to mostly small pieces" meme came from regular Joe-Schmoes and a cop. It doesn't take expertise, just common sense.


Are you genuinely attempting to argue over what the definition of "nose first" is now?

Its nose didn't hit first. It's wingtip allegedly did. Thought you should know the "facts" of the story which you are spending sooooo much of your time defending.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Mod Request

Hi People,


Please review THIS link.

Let me extract the most applicable part of it for clarity:

Any inappropriate comments, insults, topic derailment, or trolling will result in immediate posting ban or account termination.

(...really important bits underlined...)


This topic is NOT about paid shills, debunkers, Govt plants, etc etc etc.

You ALL know how this forum runs.
You ALL know how this goes.
The greater majority of you have been cautioned numerous times previously.
The greater majority have received previous Warns and other Staff Actions.
NONE of you can then claim any form of innocence or ignorance.


Quit it...or don't bother complaining, pointing the finger at others or going "What? Where? How?" when your posting privileges or entire account gets removed.



Thanks



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



My question is, what was the average size of the alleged excavated plane debris?


By volume?

By weight?

By area?

By largest dimension?

Never mind. Too late. The fact that none of these specifics was incorporated into your inquiry means that your inquiry is obviously not serious.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
How much of an expert do you need to be to observe the average size of the wreckage remains? The "reduced to mostly small pieces" meme came from regular Joe-Schmoes and a cop. It doesn't take expertise, just common sense.


So if the ultimate goal isn't to drop innuendo of impropriety, then what is your point?


Are you genuinely attempting to argue over what the definition of "nose first" is now?

Its nose didn't hit first. It's wingtip allegedly did. Thought you should know the "facts" of the story which you are spending sooooo much of your time defending.

We both know you're being disingenuous here. It didn't attempt to belly land like every other aircraft crash...with the obvious exception of kamikaze pilots...but instead flew directly into the ground. The presice part that hit the ground first is entire immaterial You have zero evidence to show otherwise and you have zero expertise in crash site forensics to show otherwise so you need to resort to using innuendo.

Am I wrong on anything I just said?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


What??


Its nose didn't hit first. It's wingtip allegedly did.


THAT'S a new wrinkle...source for it?

Because, up until now, seems that you may be the only "source" for that particular claim. AND, in a proper, educated and scientific study, tossing our unsupported statements that defy logic isn't such a great idea.....

Have you seen the airplane's actual geometric shape, in silhouette? You have, I am sure, since it's been discussed so many times. Here, once again, though...a "three-view"....pay heed to the top-down view:



See the length of fuselage portion, ahead of the wing? The amount of wing sweep-back? Know that airplanes always fly forward, straight ahead (well, mostly....except for airshows, and some aerobatic maneuvers)....but, that wasn't the case with UAL 93.

Looking at the geometry, and the ONLY forward motion, then consider this video, FROM the airplanes FDR:



Salient point in that video is just at impact, when the video freezes. Happens at 5:51 on the time reference on the YouTube version.

LOOK at the airplane position, in the animation depiction. IS THAT "wingtip first"?? AND, contrary to another claim earlier (other thread?)....is that a "40-degree" angle?? Looks more steep than that.....BTW, the "attitude indicator" depiction there, is off.....that instrument is NOT meant to indicate accurately, in terms of aircraft pitch attitude, relative to the horizon, in such extreme attitudes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
edit --- forgot to add, while directing attention to the AI, look at the altimeter. Reads about 2,180 feet, at impact.

Understand why??

(Hint...check the elevation of the terrain at the impact point. Know that an airplane's altimeter is always set with reference to MSL (Mean Sea Level)...as MSL being "zero" altitude).

Know, also....the facts of what's called the "altimeter setting" function. A knob used to adjust the readings, for non-standard atmospheric pressure variables. (Google "Kollsman window").

For flights above 18,000, we use the "Flight Level" concept....all airplanes set the altimeters the same --- 29.92 inches mg (mercury). IN many other countries, they use a unit of measure called the "hectopascal", and the is equivalent, at 1013 millibars.

ONLY when (in the USA, it varies by country) below 18,000 is the "local" altimeter correction setting used. In the case of the hijackers, I seriously doubt they bothered to re-set either altimeter that day....so, if there is ANY discrepancy from actual terrain elevation, it will be only a few hundred feet, as a result. Each ONE INCH of mg is equal to 1,000 feet on the altimeter. SO, example, from "29.92" and resetting to "30.02" (only one-tenth of an inch) the atimeter needles only change 100 feet. The altimeter setting in Newark, that morning (iirc) was 30.22 --- so, IF it was about the same in Pennsylvania, locally, then that's about a 300 foot difference.




edit on 29 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Am I wrong on anything I just said?

Yes.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Am I wrong on anything I just said?

Yes.


That isn't an answer to the question I asked. The question was whether you're using other people's inexperience in crash site forensics to promote innuendo of impropriety. It's the only reason I can see for why you care to know what the average size of the wreckage found at Shanksville.

For all you know, the evidence that a conspiracy is afoot is from the wreckage recovered being too big. You have zero experinece in crash site forensics so you don't know.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Am I wrong on anything I just said?

Yes.


So, Mr. Miller did the work for the FBI, NTSB, and UA investigating the crash?

Have you contacted anyone from the FBI for the official story?

Where in FDR data does it show the plane cartwheeling?

When did UA say their aircraft cartwheeled?

When, ATH, will you be coming back to the Flight 93 Phone call thread... you were pretty much schooled in there.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

The question was whether you're using other people's inexperience in crash site forensics to promote innuendo of impropriety.

Are you calling Wally Miller stupid???


It's the only reason I can see for why you care to know what the average size of the wreckage found at Shanksville.

Why are you so resistant to know?


For all you know, the evidence that a conspiracy is afoot is from the wreckage recovered being too big. You have zero experinece in crash site forensics so you don't know.

It's not really a conspiracy question. I simply want to know if the alleged excavated debris (which hasn't been proven, btw) was on average the same size as the average debris above ground. Is that top-secret to know?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



It's not really a conspiracy question.

So, what is a "conspiracy question"? Do you mean to admit that someone may pose a question simply for the purpose of promoting a conspiracy fantasy? Thats interesting.

I simply want to know if the alleged excavated debris (which hasn't been proven, btw) was on average the same size as the average debris above ground. Is that top-secret to know?

Do you think someone knows? And why do you think someone would have made those measurements and then categorized them? Does material found in the crater count as excavated? Or is that above ground material? And again - what do you mean by size? Weight? Volume? Area? Extreme dimension? You keeping skipping this little tidbit. Which means that its not part of your inquiry which probably means that you don't really care which probably means - well, see above.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Are you calling Wally Miller stupid???


Clever attempt at bait and switch but I'm immune to such games. Wally Smith was a coroner. He doesn't study crash site forensics nor has he said at any time that he does study crash site forensics. He'll tell you the condition of the wreckage he saw but he's not going to tell you how the crash caused the wreckage to be in the condition it was in, which is presumably the direction in which you're driving these questions.


Why are you so resistant to know?


I'm not resistant to know. It's an esoteric detail which adds nothing to the study of events of 9/11, any more than researching how many toilet seats were up vs how many were down in WTC 7 when it collapsed. It's almost certainly a detail that noone even knows, since I doubt anyone measured every piece of wreckage and calculated their average size. Do you include flexible pieces of wreckage like seat cusions along with inflexible pieces of wreckage like the fuselage in your averaging?


It's not really a conspiracy question. I simply want to know if the alleged excavated debris (which hasn't been proven, btw) was on average the same size as the average debris above ground. Is that top-secret to know?


What's good for the goose is good for the gander- are you now calling Wally Miller a liar? As I recall, you conspiracy people keep waving the "Wally Miller" flag becuase of the quotes he made about the apparent lack of human remains. His actually finding aircraft wreckage was never in doubt.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Do you think someone knows?

Well they supposedly unearthed 24 cars-worth of debris, so yeah.


And why do you think someone would have made those measurements and then categorized them?

They commented on the average size debris found above ground, did they not?


Does material found in the crater count as excavated?

Um, no hooper.


Or is that above ground material?

Yes, hooper.


And again - what do you mean by size? Weight? Volume? Area? Extreme dimension?

Why are you the only one who seems not to know what I mean? None of your skeptic buddies seemed to be confused what I was asking for.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Do you include flexible pieces of wreckage like seat cusions along with inflexible pieces of wreckage like the fuselage in your averaging?

Sure.

Btw, there should have been around 200 seats on that plane. Can you show me a photo of ONE seat cushion piece?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



They commented on the average size debris found above ground, did they not?

No, "they" did not. A few people made some comments. No one purported to be assigning measurement duty. Do you have any evidence that there was a survey of all the plane wreckage?


And again - what do you mean by size? Weight? Volume? Area? Extreme dimension?

Why are you the only one who seems not to know what I mean? None of your skeptic buddies seemed to be confused what I was asking for.


So why can't you answer simple question? Last time I looked we live in a multi-dimensional world, so which dimension do you need explored?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join