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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

You think it's a defeat that he doesn't know the exact average "size" - whatever that means - of the debris?

Wasn't the size of debris seen on the ground reported as "mostly small, about the size of a telephone book"?




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Oh right, okay. Well, from that throwaway remark I surmise that the average size of the pieces of debris was 41.78423 cm.

Will this do?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ATH911
 


Oh right, okay. Well, from that throwaway remark I surmise that the average size of the pieces of debris was 41.78423 cm.

Will this do?

Nice troll response. It's kinda expected.

But seriously, isn't one of the major reasons you skeptics like to compare the crash of Flight 1771 is because that plane was reduced to "mostly small parts"?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
I think I gave your question the kind of response it deserved. Because no matter how much you go on about it, I can't even begin to see why you want to know the answer.

If your point is that as a "sceptic" one should be aware of the exact average size of the debris then you're basically beyond help.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   


I can't even begin to see why you want to know the answer.


Because Ath911 wants to keep the issue going. As someone else pointed out he/she has started over two dozen threads about the same topic (flight 93). There is something obsessive about it. Maybe if they were to visit the crash site and possibly talk to some of the people in the nearby town, the obsession might ease. But then again I’m not Dr.Phil.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Because no matter how much you go on about it, I can't even begin to see why you want to know the answer.

Well if you would READ what I say, maybe you would. Let me try again:

isn't one of the major reasons you skeptics like to compare the crash of Flight 1771 is because that plane was reduced to "mostly small parts"?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 

"After 9 years all they have are Youtube videos and speculation."

So why are you still here obsessing about us?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Because no matter how much you go on about it, I can't even begin to see why you want to know the answer.

Well if you would READ what I say, maybe you would. Let me try again:

isn't one of the major reasons you skeptics like to compare the crash of Flight 1771 is because that plane was reduced to "mostly small parts"?


OK, just for giggles, let's say the major reason for the comparison is because the plane was reduced to mostly small parts?

Should we go on for a couple of pages about the meaning of the word "mostly" or maybe the word "small".

Just make a point.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
My signature is merely a comment to those who can’t get over 911.

On the other side, starting 28 threads on the same topic of 911 is obsessing.
Flight 93 crashed after a struggle in the cockpit and no one has shown any evidence to the contrary.
Get over it. Go on with life.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Because no matter how much you go on about it, I can't even begin to see why you want to know the answer.

Well if you would READ what I say, maybe you would. Let me try again:

isn't one of the major reasons you skeptics like to compare the crash of Flight 1771 is because that plane was reduced to "mostly small parts"?


I did read it, and I'm sorry, but so what?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


IF I MAY, please....this is not entirely correct:


Flight 93 crashed after a struggle in the cockpit and no one has shown any evidence to the contrary.


I have studied the CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) transcripts. ONLY the transcripts, because the actual recordings are not available for public consumption. THIS is the case in ALL...and I repeat, ALL instances of CVR recordings, under the jurisdictions and auspices of the United States, and the NTSB. Feel free to research THAT fact...

Secondly, I have studied the SSFDR records (Solid State Flight Data Recorder) and compared the time hacks, to the CVR and ALSO observed the NTSB animation that was created from the SSFDR, along with CVR 'quotes' in text boxes, at appropriate time references.

Thirdly, I am WELL experienced in the Boeing 757/767 family of airplanes, having many thousands of hours and years flying them.

BASED on the foregoing....there is NO DOUBT in my mind that the United 93 passengers staged a revolt, based on the information they were able to glean....and this is ONLY because of the ground delay that was experienced, on taxi-out from the gate at Newark, before take-off. By the time they were aware of being hi-jacked, the events in NYC were well known. THE TIMELINES ON THIS ARE VERY CLEAR!!!!

However, contrary to the statement quoted above....the passengers (and cabin crew assisting) in revolt DID NOT manage to breach the flight deck....they could have, except the hi-jackers in control, on the flight deck, decided to commit suicide SHORT of their intended target, rather than the alternative....which may have been a "struggle in the cockpit" scenario.

Frankly, I earnestly WISH that the breach of the cockpit door had occurred in time....and those bastards had been taken out. THEN....there are ways to have brought that airplane down safely, even without the experienced (and incapacitated/or dead) pilots. They had plenty of fuel, and on an airplane, fuel = time. Fuel for at least another 5 to 6 hours of time......







edit on 3 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I stand corrected on the specifics. But the overall point remains.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



However, contrary to the statement quoted above....the passengers (and cabin crew assisting) in revolt DID NOT manage to breach the flight deck....they could have, except the hi-jackers in control, on the flight deck, decided to commit suicide SHORT of their intended target, rather than the alternative....which may have been a "struggle in the cockpit" scenario.


Great how you read their minds....
If the Flight Deck was not breached why the heck would they crash the plane into a field??

While on their "suicide" mission, were they worried if the passengers and crew managed to force their way in then they might get hurt??
So instead they thought, he guys, lets just nosedive into an empty field. no point trying to reach our target now, they're banging on the door...

That's just too funny weed...



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Yes.

More on the circumstances, as I can envision, based on multiple sources and re-creations:

First, know that as part of standard equipment on all airliners, a "crash axe" is stowed in the cockpit. Its purpose? Primarily a hold-over from decades past....but, use was intended for those (rare) occasions when a FIRE was detected, or suspected....and the source "buried" behind whichever obstructions (furnishings) may exist. The axe is intended as a tool to remove the obstructions, and allow the fire extinguishing material better access. BTW...on a flight deck, the water (H2O) extinguishers are NOT allowed!! Water is not suitable for electrical fires...most common types in the cockpit. HALON is preferred. CO2 as the alternate.


Point of bringing up the axe is....well, during the revolt in the cabin, it is clear on the CVR that the OTHER hijacker (who was not flying, but present on the flight deck) WAS 'bringing up the axe'.....literally. As they (the two up front) realized, both from the sounds emanating from the cabin, AND from viewing thru the flight deck door peephole (yes...it is EXACTLY like the one you have in your home's front door, or your hotel room's door...a "fish-eye" lens to look outside, thru the door)....they could see (and hear) what was happening.

SO....they KNEW that it was only a matter of time that some breach of THEIR position, in the cockpit, was imminent. They KNEW that their two comrades were down, in the main cabin.

The idiocy of those (well, the one....I presume the one flying) who said to the other (in Arabic, per the CVR), "Show them the axe!" indicates how stupid (or panicky) they were. Because, obviously....that "peephole" doesn't work both ways. His directive to "show them the axe" was stupid, beyond belief....but, not surprising....and that comes from a rather deep-set bias I may harbor against the terminally stupid in our society (or in other societies...).

This "deep-set bias" does not stop at any cultural boundary.....I am able to apply it to many who qualify for the laser-like precision it deserves.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


You posted this irrelevant diatribe, coincidentally, as I was writing the above post. READ the above post, as it answers your "questions".....even as you "asked" them.

Aside:....do you ever try to logic stuff thru, at all?? Seriously.....of course, it is due to lack of experience, I presume.....

.....terribly difficult to convey, in writing here in this Forum, what is so easily (and universally experienced) by EVERY AIRLINE FLIGHT CREWMEMBER in the world.....


>shrug



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Great how you read their minds....
If the Flight Deck was not breached why the heck would they crash the plane into a field??

While on their "suicide" mission, were they worried if the passengers and crew managed to force their way in then they might get hurt??
So instead they thought, he guys, lets just nosedive into an empty field. no point trying to reach our target now, they're banging on the door...

[/ex]

So what should they have done when the passengers kicked in the door? Surrender?

Hijackers realized passengers were about to break in - While passngers may have killed the hijackers in
process of regaining control ( at least 1 , possible 2 were killed in cabin when passengers rushed cockpit ) was
chance would be taken alive. At this point would not only have failed in mission of taking down US Capitol
but would have been interogated to reveal everything they knew about Bin Laden and any other plots

From news reports of other "interogations" CIA was able to crack them and spill everything
[Personally would liked to see some of them in Gitmo having head shoved into toilet during game of "find the
Koran")

To avoid this choose "death before dishonor" and crashed airplane killing themselves and everyone else on board

Japanese in WWII was famous for this killing themselves to avoid capture or launching wild "banzai" charges
to kill as many Allied soldiers as possible before being killed



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by backinblack
 


WITH respect to thedman....

I think this may be how he intended his post to appear (??):



Originally posted by backinblack

Great how you read their minds....
If the Flight Deck was not breached why the heck would they crash the plane into a field??

While on their "suicide" mission, were they worried if the passengers and crew managed to force their way in then they might get hurt??
So instead they thought, he guys, lets just nosedive into an empty field. no point trying to reach our target now, they're banging on the door...




Originally posted by thedeman
So what should they have done when the passengers kicked in the door? Surrender?

Hijackers realized passengers were about to break in - While passngers may have killed the hijackers in
process of regaining control ( at least 1 , possible 2 were killed in cabin when passengers rushed cockpit ) was
chance would be taken alive. At this point would not only have failed in mission of taking down US Capitol
but would have been interogated to reveal everything they knew about Bin Laden and any other plots

From news reports of other "interogations" CIA was able to crack them and spill everything
[Personally would liked to see some of them in Gitmo having head shoved into toilet during game of "find the
Koran")

To avoid this choose "death before dishonor" and crashed airplane killing themselves and everyone else on board

Japanese in WWII was famous for this killing themselves to avoid capture or launching wild "banzai" charges
to kill as many Allied soldiers as possible before being killed



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



However, contrary to the statement quoted above....the passengers (and cabin crew assisting) in revolt DID NOT manage to breach the flight deck....they could have, except the hi-jackers in control, on the flight deck, decided to commit suicide SHORT of their intended target, rather than the alternative....which may have been a "struggle in the cockpit" scenario.


Great how you read their minds....
If the Flight Deck was not breached why the heck would they crash the plane into a field??

While on their "suicide" mission, were they worried if the passengers and crew managed to force their way in then they might get hurt??
So instead they thought, he guys, lets just nosedive into an empty field. no point trying to reach our target now, they're banging on the door...

That's just too funny weed...


Or alternatively, suicidal people committed suicide because they realised the game was up.

It doesn't seem that much of a stretch. Or, I might add, particularly amusing.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I did read it, and I'm sorry, but so what?

I'm sorry, but people here expect there to be a certain amount of intelligence to participate in meaningful debate. Trying coming back in a couple of years.
edit on 4-2-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I did read it, and I'm sorry, but so what?

I'm sorry, but people here expect there to be a certain amount of intelligence to participate in meaningful debate. Trying coming back in a couple of years.
edit on 4-2-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)


I'll trying coming back in a couple of years. Because then there might be a certain amount of intelligence. Is that what you're saying? Perhaps I'm not clever enough to decode your highly intellectual writing style.

The point is, I can't understand why you want to know what you're asking in this thread, and your explanation doesn't make any sense. Except to you.

Least of all I can't understand why you're asking people on an internet forum - with whom you mostly disagree - for information better found in other places. What are you achieveing?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join