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: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   


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...


Must have been in an awful hurry to get their hands on those 72 virgins...




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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.

I'll try to explain it to you one more time and if you can't understand it, you're going on ignore, because you're a waste of time.

A lot of truthers think the Shanksville "crash" is suspicious, because hardly anything of a plane was left (i.e. plane was shredded into mostly small piece (officially)).

You skeptics say that is not unique and bring up plane crashes like Flight 1771 because that plane got shredded into mostly small pieces "too."

However, I'm not sure it's ever been known how big or small the tons and tons of plane pieces that allegedly came out of the ground in Shanksville were. If they were mostly small on average like the above ground debris, then it would be correct in saying the average size debris of the alleged Flight 93 crash is not suspicious. However, if there were a lot of large pieces that were dug out of the ground, then you skeptic wouldn't be able to compare it to crashes like Flight 1771, based on the average debris size.

So, what was the average size of the alleged excavated UA93 debris?
edit on 4-2-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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<


Yes Weed, we all know you say you were a pilot...

Now, having flown these planes I guess you can tell us how strong and secure the Flight Deck door is..
What would it take to smash through it if some of the highjackers were to try and hold it shut..?
What implements were available in the cabin to use?
How much rooms is there immediatly outside the door for people to stand?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
*** PLEASE KEEP THREAD ON-TOPIC ***



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
*** PLEASE KEEP THREAD ON-TOPIC ***


Opps, sorry..

Well on topic..

On 9/11, 4 very large passenger planes crashed..
I don't recall seeing anywhere, a piece of debris that would not fit in a small sized ute....



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Thanks for asking......


Now, having flown these planes I guess you can tell us how strong and secure the Flight Deck door is..


was. Not very strong. Are now.

Back then, for weight considerations....the doors were made of the same composition as the doors to the lavatories. Lightweight honeycomb composites....epoxy/fiberglass type stuff.

Having said that, though....they were rigid, due to the honeycomb inner layer. Also, had a (rather thin) aluminum edging around the perimeter.



What would it take to smash through it if some of the highjackers were to try and hold it shut..?


Would have been difficult.....though, with some adrenaline, and some very strong kicks? Could have been accomplished, I'd think. Rare events, crazed passengers....THIS happened post-9/11 (but before the reinforced doors became prevalent):

www.sptimes.com...

Doors had blow-out panels, for those cases of explosive decompression events. Even the modern, enhanced and secure doors, can be "broken down" (but ONLY from the inside....as a means of escape, should a flight crew be trapped, and the door jammed in the jamb, say after an accident....AND the window exits were unusable for some reason ... like fire).



What implements were available in the cabin to use?


Besides feet and legs....fire extinguishers, I would try, as a club. POBs (portable oxygen bottles) too.



How much rooms is there immediately outside the door for people to stand?


Guess you haven't flown in a while? Difficulty with the B-757, compared to the 767, is the direction the door opens. 757 doors open aft, into the cabin. The arrangement is just about the same as on 737s. Lavatory is just to the left, galley to the right....so , several people could stand in the galley. Others, just behind the lavatory, at door 1L, at the F/A jumpseat.

I have tried to find diagrams, "floor plans" online...found this one, is pretty typical for United, American, Northwest/Delta, Continental, etc:



One more:



Those aren't to scale, in some ways, but representative.

Here's a photo I found, too:




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Mate, probably the best reply I have ever seen from you and stared accordingly..

Straight forward usefull information..


Yes, I was aware they reinforced the doors after 9/11..

I've never read the CVR so I'm going to do that....

My only queery would be, if the highlacker piloting the plane at the time had even half a brain, he could have pulled some manouvers to throw anyone in the cabin back and off their feet..
Just a bit odd that they didn't think to do that...



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


What about the food/beverage service cart? Indications are that passengers tried to use it to batter door in

Remember seeing TV program on SPIKE channel about counter acting hijacking using beverage cart to breach
cockpit doors

www.spike.com...

Cockpit breaching sequence starts 23 min in.....



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


They did. Hijackers used violent maneuvers to throw passengers off feet as they rushed the cockpit

This was witnessed by 2 people on light aircraft which saw Flight 93 shortly before it crashed


"(It) went behind us. (We) lost sight for a while and when it came back (the passenger) said, 'It's turning toward us. Now it's turning away. Now turning back toward us.' So it was rocking its wings.

"It would bank hard left, bank hard right and then back to hard left. We saw it bank three or four times before we got away from it."

Wright said that may have been when several passengers were fighting back against the terrorists.


www.wtae.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 




What about the food/beverage service cart? Indications are that passengers tried to use it to batter door in


Oh, yeah, snap! Forgot that!!

Yeah, loaded the carts weigh a few hundred pounds....with all those cans of soda. Could make dents in door. Problem would be aiming, and getting up a head of steam...a running start. (I picture it getting caught on the armrests, in the rather narrow aisle). Still, you have the closet, bulkhead in front of first row First Class, then galley, etc. which gives you several feet to get up some momentum.

Guess I can reveal, since it isn't this way anymore....at my company, we ALL had door keys. F/As were supposed to have one, as well. Don't know about United, would assume they were similar. Either had key on person, or one was "hidden" and accessible, with emergency equipment. Of course, now, there are NO KEYS to gain entry. Entirely different, and I won't describe......



Hijackers used violent maneuvers to throw passengers off feet as they rushed the cockpit

This was witnessed by 2 people on light aircraft ...


Well, they tried....and, you can see it in the NTSB video made from the Flight Recorder. Really, that technique isn't very effective...temporarily, but you can usually find a way to brace yourself. Negative Gs, notwithstanding. (pun). But, sustained negative Gs, not for very long. Same with any of the maneuvers....


edit on 4 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Of course, now, there are NO KEYS to gain entry. Entirely different, and I won't describe......


You mean this WW..?

Emergency Access Request
The emergency access code is used to gain access to the flight deck in case of pilot incapacitation. Annunciation of a flight deck chime and illumination of the amber AUTO UNLK light indicates the correct emergency access code has been entered and the door is programmed to unlock after a time delay.

www.biggles-software.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Dash it all!!!

There are a few different versions, vary by airline. Yours was the link to the site for "Thomas Cook" airlines.

Suffice to say, if unauthorized entry is attempted, the pilots are WELL alerted...in all versions.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



They did. Hijackers used violent maneuvers to throw passengers off feet as they rushed the cockpit

Simple going nose up would have done the trick..
Still tells me the highjackers knew nothing...



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 



Dash it all!!!

There are a few different versions, vary by airline. Yours was the link to the site for "Thomas Cook" airlines.

Suffice to say, if unauthorized entry is attempted, the pilots are WELL alerted...in all versions.



Yes, the pilots have the ability to cancel an entry request..
A very good idea..



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Simple going nose up would have done the trick..


Nope.

Only temporarily....speed eventually bleeds off, and has to be built back up....airplanes have limits. Excessive G forces, and some damage will occur, too. Of course, they didn't care about that...



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 



Simple going nose up would have done the trick..


Nope.

Only temporarily....speed eventually bleeds off, and has to be built back up....airplanes have limits. Excessive G forces, and some damage will occur, too. Of course, they didn't care about that...


OK, as a pilot, truthfully, how hard would you have found it to keep them away from the door and in a position to get in??
Would YOU have been able to keep them at bay if it was you in the drivers seat and the terrorists were at the door?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Skeptics,

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



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Skeptics,

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


No one knows the "average size", whatever that means, why?

Why "average"? You realize that average basically means that half the material is larger and half is smaller.

5+2+3+8+7+1=26 26/6 = 4.333, but as you can see none of the samples = 4. So by learning the "average" size you actually gain no knowledge about the size of the material.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
I'll try to explain it to you one more time and if you can't understand it, you're going on ignore, because you're a waste of time.


Put me on ignore. The truth rarely has to run from awkward questions.

Whereas self-evident nonsense often finds it very convenient not to listen to opposing points of view.

It's pretty simple. Why are you asking me to provide you with this data? Why are you not trying to find it out yourself? I find your motives suspect, because it seems you're more interested in an argument with your beloved "skeptics" than discovering things for yourself.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It's pretty simple. Why are you asking me to provide you with this data? Why are you not trying to find it out yourself?

Oh, I figured you skeptics knew, because you guys keep saying most of the alleged Flight 93 wreckage was in small pieces. I guess you guys were spreading misinformation. You guys should go correct that from all your debunking websites and youtube videos.


I find your motives suspect, because it seems you're more interested in an argument with your beloved "skeptics" than discovering things for yourself.

Then why are you participating?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join