Soil Specialist from Down Under- Flight 93 Crashed in Shanksville? "Nonsense!"

[Mr.Herbert]

"Rewey" at ATS has posted a paper outlining his reasons as to why the crash sight in Shanksville is not representative of a high speed nose down crash.



http://www.4shared.com/file/112428326/655de593/Soft_Shanksville_soil_and_other_nonsense.html

The above is the link to his report that he prepared regarding "this 'loosely packed' soil nonsense."

The report is several pages with many pictures and diagrams. He tends to deviate into the Pentagon CT's from time to time.

At the end there are many questions he requests answers to. If anyone is interested, here they are:



In conclusion, given my experience with, and understanding of soil, through my work-related experiences, and my understanding of physics from previous study, the official story of the crash of Flight 93 at Shanksville could simply not be possible. When considering all aspects together the official story is utter nonsense. The questions which were raised throughout this report have been collated below:

Question 1: How can sand that is contains large, hardened pockets of sand, an almost entire covering of wild grass, which leaves clean, sharp edges when dug, and in which feet and vehicles do not sink even slightly, be so ‘loosely packed’ that an entire plane can sink into it, and be so ‘loosely packed’ that it slips back over the plane once buried, leaving it neatly covered?

Question 2: How does a plane travel 34 metres into the sand largely unimpeded, only to have the tail fin and last 13 metres of the cabin ‘disintegrate’ solely from the impact of the tail fin with the ground, particularly given that the official story claims the ground was ‘soft and loose’ enough to swallow the entire plane, and the tail fin is apparently very light, and not structurally rigid?

Question 3: If Val McClatchy took a photo indicating a large explosion, which left
large pieces of debris and ‘disintegrated’ over 200 passenger chairs and internal fittings so that no traces remain, how did the last section of the plane remain intact to leave an imprint with the tail fin?

Question 4: If the plane was decelerating rapidly due to impact and friction with the ground, is it reasonable to assume that by the time the tail fin reached the ground, there would still be sufficient momentum for the entire tail fin to ‘disintegrate’?


Question 5: How can it be argued that the ground was 'soft and loose enough that it swallowed an entire plane', but at the same time the ground was so hard that it 'disintegrated the entire tail fin into tiny pieces' (my paraphrasing here, not direct quotes)?

Question 6: Is it realistic to expect that a tail fin impact on a bomb-resistant concrete building would result in much greater damage than a tail fin impact with ‘soft, loose sand’?

Question 7: Is it realistic to expect that exploding jet fuel as it impacts ‘soft, loose sand’ will react or explode differently to exploding jet fuel impacting with a bomb-resistant concrete building?

Question 8: If most of the blast impact at the Pentagon crash is dissipated throughout the mostly-empty office floors or outside of the building as shown in the surveillance camera footage, how did the blast manage to spread vertically through 5 steel-reinforced concrete floors?

Question 9: If this damage is caused by the blast, and not the tail fin, why is it only vertical damage, all the way to the roof, and not in a radial fashion?

Question 10: If at least a part of the Pentagon damage shown was caused by the tail fin of the supposed plane, how did behave so differently to the tail fin in the Shanksville crash (which apparently left only a minor impression on ‘soft, loose sand’), given both planes hit stationary objects and both planes experienced a jet fuel explosion?

Question 11: If Val McClatchy took a photo indicating a large explosion, which tore the plane apart, leaving thousands of pieces of debris, how did the plane bury itself entirely in sand, given that it was separated into much smaller individual pieces, each of which would not be carrying the same momentum as when traveling as one, connected mass (the plane)?

Question 12: If there are countless recreations and computer simulations of the two planes hitting the WTC towers, and of the alleged plane hitting the Pentagon, why is there not one official source which has produced a recreation or computer simulation of the plane hitting the ground in Shanksville, as per the official story?

Question 13: If Val McClatchy took a photo indicating a large explosion from the plane’s impact, which could only realistically be from the plane’s fuel load, which left large pieces of debris, and given that the fuel of the plane is stored along the wings, how could grass and earth inside the supposed wing imprints be undisturbed and unburnt? Surely, the point of impact for the wings (the ‘wing imprints’) is the point at which the fuel in the wings would explode, as per Val McClatchy’s photo?

Question14: If exploding jet fuel covers a large area of the ground, how can the result of a similar explosion of jet fuel on the same day result in no burnt grass, right up to, and even inside the point of impact with the ground,?


Question 15: If the burning jet fuel was sprayed or thrown approximately 60 metres towards the wooded area, why does Val McClatchy’s photo show a cloud of smoke which indicates both a singular point of explosion, and one initial explosion with virtually no residual burning, as shown below?

Question 16: How can one plane lose or shatter its cockpit when hitting sand so ‘loosely packed’ that it swallowed the rest of the plane, whilst another on the same day crashes through 6 external bomb-resistant walls?

Question 17: As discussed above in the section on inertia, how were these other parts able to crash through 6 walls, given that the momentum and inertia they carried as individual, disconnected items is far less than when traveling as one connected, heavy mass?

Question 18: How does the burning jet fuel, which exploded on impact with the first exterior wall, travel through 5 more external walls, including passing through two more ‘rings’ of outdoor space, to continue burning at the final ‘exit hole’?

Question 19: How can 406 tons, or 282m³, of sand be displaced almost instantly, yet show absolutely no evidence of disturbance in the ground immediately around the alleged crash site?

Question 20: What type of ‘loosely packed’ sand provides absolutely no resistance to a 90 ton Boeing traveling at great speed, yet is firm enough for people to walk on without sinking up to their ankles, or for vehicles to drive on without becoming bogged?

Question 21: If a plane has lost its cockpit, and therefore its ‘wedge’ shaped profile, how did it bury itself in sand when there was a force acting to push the nose away from the ground at roughly 25º, which is magnified the faster the plane is traveling, and another force provided by gravity acting to twist the plane further onto its back?

Question 22: How, therefore, could this loose sand hold the nose of the plane firmly in the ground to prevent it tipping over, particularly given that the plane was only at 40º to the ground? Surely the nose would have just lifted through this incredibly ‘loosely packed’ sand?

[Arus808]

wow, simply. just wow. those questions are just stupid. the last one is a hoot

[phunk]

Good lord does he think the official story is that the plane burried itself intact?

[Gravy]

I know what a strawman argument is, but this is the first sandman argument I've seen! The only thing that list of gibberish is lacking is one of those Killtown "should have been" drawings showing half the plane sticking out of the ground.

[Gravy]

Good lord does he think the plane burried itself intact?
No, he thinks the "official version" states that the plane buried itself nearly intact. He is, in short, a blithering idiot.

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

I know what a strawman argument is, but this is the first sandman argument I've seen!

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f204/kent18/SandmanTbolts.gif

:D

[dudalb]

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f204/kent18/SandmanTbolts.gif

:D



Ya beat me to it, you SOB!

But I have to say my BS detector is screaming when this guy claims to be expert on Soils.

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

Ya beat me to it, you SOB!

PhotoBucket Fu. :p

[Mr.Herbert]

The only thing that list of gibberish is lacking is one of those Killtown "should have been" drawings showing half the plane sticking out of the ground.

I was thinking the same thing. Although this guy took it a step further:

He thinks it should have bounced.

Yellow: as the red and green forces do not meet in directly opposing directions(ie. head-on), this is the resulting rebound force. With the ground ‘pushing’ up(perpendicular to its surface), and the plane moving at approximately 40º, and with these two forces being roughly the same, the resulting direction of theyellow force bisects the angle between the other two, meaning it is at approximately 25º to the horizontal. It is this rebounding force which providesthe usual spray of debris when an object hits the ground or water at an angle.Also, it explains why when objects do collide head-on, the resulting spray appears to be at right-angles to the crash – this is halfway between the angle of the two objects; http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/bounce.jpg

[leftysergeant]

Six blast-resistant walls? Oy! The moron has done zip-oh for research. He knows neither Shanksville nor the Pentagon.

[T.A.M.]

where is the automatic defense of this guy from the local truthbots?

Come on truthers, he is after all a SOIL SPECIALIST, who was not in any way involved in the crash investigation. I mean certainly a SOIL SPECIALIST is key in a crash investigation.

Galileo? bill?

TAM:)

[Justin39640]

Six blast-resistant walls? Oy! The moron has done zip-oh for research. He knows neither Shanksville nor the Pentagon.

LMAO

However, the original official story of the alleged Pentagon crash is that the plane
supposedly smashed into a bomb-resistant concrete building (at a sideways angle
similar to the vertical angle of Flight 93 hitting the ground), and managed to pass
through 6 external walls as shown below:

you would think after almost 8 years he would have looked at the cross section by now of the pentagon

in case he is reading DO RESEARCH ON LIGHT WELLS LOL

FAIL!

[Justin39640]

not to mention
but how can anyone take a "scientific" paper seriously when it has "nonsense" in the title?

[T.A.M.]

I was thinking the same thing. Although this guy took it a step further:

He thinks it should have bounced.

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/bounce.jpg

bounced? OMFG!

That one ranks up there with the keebler elves!!!

That made my day. What a ****ing moron.

TAM:)

[George152]

His expertise may be in the field of soiled nappies.

[Bobert]

Oh no is this YET ANOTHER truther who has watched WAY TOO MANY episodes of the Road Runner?
See kids this is what smoking weed does to your brain if done too much!

[Gravy]

I was thinking the same thing. Although this guy took it a step further:

He thinks it should have bounced.

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/bounce.jpg

The quote and graphic are out of context, so I can't tell what his claim is. Much of the debris did "bounce" in the indicated direction, mostly in small pieces, of course. The fuel blast and the penetrability of the soil made the debris distribution more complicated than the graphic indicates.

[T.A.M.]

The quote and graphic are out of context, so I can't tell what his claim is. Much of the debris did "bounce" in the indicated direction, mostly in small pieces, of course. The fuel blast and the penetrability of the soil made the debris distribution more complicated than the graphic indicates.

Yes the graphic, and the thought of the entire airplane bouncing off the ground is what is so insane.

TAM:)

[Justin39640]

Yes the graphic, and the thought of the entire airplane bouncing off the ground is what is so insane.

TAM:)

Flubber Theory?

[Bobert]

http://bike29.com/ride29er/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/wile-e-coyote460.jpg

[Justin39640]

http://bike29.com/ride29er/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/wile-e-coyote460.jpg

hey he never bounced
unless he had and ACME trampoline

[Audible Click]

He's an expert in night soil. :D

[Bobert]

I google imaged and was hoping to find a pic of the coyote crashing into the ground but gave up after checking like 6 pages. That was the closest I could get, sorry.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

When I want to know if the soil chemistry in my back yard will kill my chick-peas, I'll call a soil specialist.

Until then, "Rewey" can STFU and stay outta things that he knows nothing about.

[Leviath]

This guy should pay some attention. To convince anyone he needs to make a model out of cardboard and throw into some soil. Then post it on youtube and say "Hey, it doesn't bury itself. Inside job!"

[TheDaver]

But I have to say my BS detector is screaming when this guy claims to be expert on Soils.
When anybody on ATS claims to be an expert on anything, it pegs my BS meter.

[McHrozni]

I'll go and answer a few, just for fun.

A1: The plane is much heavier than vehicles and people, while not pressing down on a much larger footprint. It will leave a greater impression than any comparison made in the question before we consider it was also traveling at a high speed at the time of crash. The situations are literately incomparable. No one, except for him, claimed the plane was neatly covered, so I'll be kind and ignore that, rather than call him a liar outright (as would be proper).

A2: The forces involved in a crash are way beyond what the structure of the tail section can sustain, so it broke apart. As simple as that. He is the first person to claim the plane traveled through the sand "largely unimpeded". If that were the case, the plane would be "largely intact", and it wouldn't stop either. He's clearly just setting up a straw man.

A3: If we leave out the untruthful part that the tail section needs to be "intact" in order to leave an imprint (it needs to be mostly in one piece, that's it), his contention here is that the entire plane should disintegrate immediately in the moment the nose touches the ground, or remain largely intact throughout the crash. If you doesn't understand why that is ridiculously flawed, please cancel your account and apply for disability benefits for mental retardation.

A4: Yes. As you pointed out in Question 2, it's very lightly built.

A5: Because the two aren't mutually exclusive. The high speed of the plane is the key to disintegrating. Had the plane impacted a lot softer surface of the water, it would still disintegrate, but the pieces would be larger. Many accidents worldwide attest to that. The Air France disaster of June 2009 is very illustrative - it is fairly likely the plane broke apart just because it was traveling too fast. It was therefore only impacting the air in front of it. That's obviously a lot softer than any sand.

A6: Not factual. If you claim that happened, please show your evidence to support or clarify it.

A7: See A6.

A8: See A7.

A9: I'm assuming there are a few pictures missing here, so I'll skip this one.

A10: See A8.

A11: This is the first time I see the claim the plane was torn apart by explosion. See A10 if to gain a more complete answer.

A12: Probably because the crash at Shanskville was a lot simpler and with a lot less implications to anyone. if the plane crashes into the ground at high speed, it will disintegrate. This was well known to anyone outside the present 9/11 'truth' community apparently decades before 911.

A13: See A10.

A14: See A13.

A15: Probably because the photo only showed the top portion of the resulting cloud, not the entire explosion. It's quite evident the explosion itself is obscured.

A16: See A14.

A17: Because the individual, heavy pieces need to crash through a smaller section of the wall. A truck has much more inertia to a steel-coated 5.56mm bullet, but the truck will not penetrate a soft ballistic vest, while the bullet might. You'd think that would be evident to any school kid.

A18: If I understand you correctly, your premise here is that the entire fuel load exploded outside. If that is correct, see A16.

A19: Because it's loosely packed sand, which will absorb the blow. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about this.

A20: See A16.

A21: The force of momentum of the plane was greater than the counteracting force. You said it yourself countless times that the sand offered "no resistance". Though this is incorrect, it certainly offered less resistance than, say, a thick piece of steel would. The plane was able to bury itself inside because the resistance was sufficiently small. If you quote me Newtons' 3rd law on this, re-enroll into high school.

A22: Why would it need to hold the nose again? See A20.

Overall, moderately entertaining to answer.

McHrozni

[cludgie]

The first couple of questions alone seem to indicate he attended the same 'the physics of impacts 101' course at Acme University that the proponents of the "flight 77 should've left a plane-shaped hole" theory did.

[Foolmewunz]

A guy who works for a company that constructs housing and mentions that they (not he, himself) do soil testing?

And, hey, he had some physics in school! I'm convinced.

You have to give the props to a scientific paper published under a web pseudonym. I'm sure Alex Jones will help him get it peer reviewed.

Is this Kiltown's magnum opus? (Too much fascination with Val's picture for it not to be him.)

[beachnut]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact3.jpg
High speed impact.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact5.jpg
High speed impact.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact1.jpg
This is what happens, the plane gets buried and ejects parts.

Having worked aircraft accident scenes I find his questions are indicative of an insane dolt who ate the soil instead of studying soil. An idiot on this issue with no working knowledge of aircraft accidents, who can't do physics, and has appeared to make moronic conclusions through his dirt dumb, stupid soil questions.

[phunk]

No, he thinks the "official version" states that the plane buried itself nearly intact. He is, in short, a blithering idiot.

Yeah that's what I meant to say, I guess I didn't correct myself before you quoted it. :)

[leftysergeant]

An idiot on this issue with no working knowledge of aircraft accidents, who can't do physics, and has appeared to make moronic conclusions through his dirt dumb, stupid soil questions.

Rather an understatement and more politely worded than what I would have said.

Could you tell me where and when and what sort of aircraft that was? Looks even more tidy than the Shanksville crater and the rocks in trhe soil look larger. The soil in this picture (I and assuming it is a plantation of some sort, based on the straight lines observeable in the overhead views) would have to be more compact that 5-10 year old fill.

[Drs_Res]

Time to post this again.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1774246f1e6987b098.jpg

[leftysergeant]

Time to post this again.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1774246f1e6987b098.jpg

You can tell that that was originally added to the meme by a twoofer, because they show the bottom of the aircraft where the top should be.

The twoof movement in a nut shell.

[beachnut]

Rather an understatement and more politely worded than what I would have said.

Could you tell me where and when and what sort of aircraft that was? Looks even more tidy than the Shanksville crater and the rocks in trhe soil look larger. The soil in this picture (I and assuming it is a plantation of some sort, based on the straight lines observeable in the overhead views) would have to be more compact that 5-10 year old fill.

That was out of the accident investigation manual the main purpose was to show the lack of identifying part (parts that look like planes). The aircraft may of been a fighter who hit like 93 with lots of speed. When we discussed high speed high angle impacts like 93 we learned the pilots in some of these accidents was smashed to the size of shoe-box. The first impact looks like the desert, the same problem is high energy impact not many identifying parts.

Flight 93 impact is exactly what you would expect for the speed and angles. Boeing has some experts who could tell you for the soil type how deep items could be buried and what kind of ejection distances to expect on parts from the crash. On one accident for a U-2 the altimeter was ejected over 400 feet in good condition from a 150mph stall impact, and the fan part of 93 found 300 yards or more away would not be unexpected.

I tried to find more stuff from my aircraft accident investigation class but I do not have the other old manual and they were discontinued and are horded by safety guys.

If the accident scene in PA was staged thousands of trained people from Boeing, USAF, USN, DoD, NTSB, and other places would see it and there would have been a big deal 7 years, 9 months and 14 days ago. But the scene at PA for 93 is what you get when you run into the ground at 600 mph. If you want more parts in better condition, slow down like the guy who ditched in NY.

[Comsat Angel]

An idiot on this issue with no working knowledge of aircraft accidents, who can't do physics, and has appeared to make moronic conclusions through his dirt dumb, stupid soil questions.

Irony bites. Soil scientist? Beachnut's favourite insult comes of age and relevance!

[gumboot]

Hah hah. These guys never cease to entertain.

[Rewey]

Wow, I can’t believe you guys were all talking about me, and didn’t even invite me over to defend myself! I’ve just stumbled across this site by accident, and after reading this thread, I fail to see why this site is called a place to discuss ‘critical thinking’ in ‘a friendly way’. So far there’s been very little but abuse towards me. Let’s have a look at the ‘critical thinking’ so far:


“That made my day. What a ****ing moron”.

“His expertise may be in the field of soiled nappies”.

“Until then, Rewey can STFU and stay outta things that he knows nothing about”.

Besides the fact that those comments are obviously in violation of the T&C’s of this site (awesome moderating), I get the feeling there are a few people here who feel proud that they are critical thinkers for no other reason that they post their thoughts on a website which claims it’s for critical thinking. That’s quite sad, but anyway…

I’ll tell you what. HERE’S A CHALLENGE. Read what I have to post here. Not just speed-read or skim it, but take a couple of minutes to read it. I’ll explain my side, and here’s the catch – I’ll do it without anonymously verbally abusing someone I’ve never met, just because they have an opinion. Some of you might learn something from that.

To clear up a few things first:


“But I have to say my BS detector is screaming when this guy claims to be expert on Soils.”

I should hope so, because I never said that. That was someone on this thread. Heck, you even said so in the thread title.


“but how can anyone take a "scientific" paper seriously when it has "nonsense" in the title?”

I don’t know, but I’ve never claimed I was writing a ‘scientific paper’ – just putting my thoughts on paper, using my interpretation of the photos available, and discussing it with people who might have differing opinions or contrary evidence I might learn from.


“just wow. those questions are just stupid.”

What I find hard to believe is that all of you guys missed the very obvious fact that EVERY ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS WAS A RESPONSE TO SOMETHING AN ‘OFFICIAL STORY’ SUPPOTER WAS CLAIMING. So please, feel free to laugh at them as much as you like. Marvel in their stupidity, because they come from someone on YOUR side of the argument.

And leftysergeant, with regards to me drifting to the Pentagon from time to time – this was stated in the report as being well off topic. For those who continued with the thread on ATS, you’d also know that when someone pointed out evidence contrary to what I’d said, I THANKED THEM AND AMENDED MY REPORT. You see, unlike most people on both sides of the 9/11 debate, when someone points out evidence to show I’m wrong, I actually go back and amend my paper. I don’t immediately abuse the **** out of them. I’m currently working on Revision 1, which I’d hoped to finish tonight, but thought I’d better say a few things here instead. [continued...]

[Rewey]

The report I wrote was in response to some of the claims that were being made by supporters of the ‘official story’, such as:
- the plane buried itself in the soil up to the tail fin
- small pieces of plane buried themselves as deep as 50 feet into the soil
- you could clearly see the imprint of the tail fin on the ground
- the pieces of plane were able to bury themselves up to 50 feet deep because the soil around the Shanksville site was ‘loosely packed’ because it was on old strip mine

Firstly, there’s something you guys need to accept. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL STORY with regards to Flight 93. NIST didn’t bother to make a report on this one. What does this mean? It means that unfortunately, the ‘official story’ includes everything that supporters of the ‘official story’ say. Sadly, as all of those obviously dumb claims were made by people supporting an ‘official story’, they are in the same boat as you guys. If I were you, I would be as worried about that as I am about the idiots talking about No Plane Theory and Rocket Pods on 747s. Why? Because they form a part of the ether which is collectively known as the ‘official story’, and that’s what you guys are supporting. I accept that No Planers make all people like me who question the ‘official story’ look like retards, but you guys have to accept that some people are making equally dumb claims on your behalf. It is not acceptable just to claim “Well I never said that!” You still have a responsibility to bring into line those claims being made on your behalf, just like I do with people making stupid claims on my behalf.

FOR THAT REASON some of you guys should be thanking me, because I’m trying to prove wrong what you and I both seem to think are ludicrous statements. It actually HELPS YOUR CAUSE when I prove some of those dumber claims wrong. For some reason, some of you seem to think that I’M MAKING THOSE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS, whereas I’ve simply read them elsewhere, and am trying to point out how silly they are.

So let’s look at those claims above. Why do I think it’s nonsense to suggest that the soil was ‘loosely packed’ because it was a filled in strip mine? After all, even leftysergeant claims:


“The soil in this picture… would have to be more compact that 5-10 year old fill”.


To me, this demonstrates little understanding of decommissioning of strip mines. He seems to think that when the strip mine at Shanksville (called Diamond T, I now know) was decommissioned, the mine operators simply poured in truckloads of loose fill, and everyone shook hands and walked away. In short, this is not realistic at all, because in decommissioning the mine VERY STRICT decommissioing requirements had been met.

Unlike you, I looked it up. It's covered by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 1977 (SMCRA), and administered by the Office of Surface Mining. This is just one of the nearly 60 Federal laws and regulations which must be adhered to which apply specifically to coal mining.

One of the requirements of the Act is the preparation (BEFORE mining even starts) of a reclamation plan, which needs to be assessed and approved. To quote: "The broad objectives of the rehabilitation program were to eliminate soil and water pollution on and around the site, and to produce a STABLE LANDFORM with a self-sustaining vegetative cover…"

The reclaiming of the decommissioned strip mine was under strict Federal laws surrounding strip mining activities. For the ‘official story’ to continue to claim that the ground was 'loosely packed' or 'soft' because of an old strip mine that used to operate is completely ignoring the masses of Federal laws and regulations which would have ensured that the area was returned to its PRE-MINING STATE (which is a term used throughout the legislation).

These legislative requirements for decommissioning a strip mine SPECIFICALLY IN PENNSYLVANIA can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30, Volume 3, Part 398 ‘Pennsylvania’.


"Section 938.1 SCOPE - This part contains all rules applicable only within Pennsylvania that have been adopted under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977".


From another source:


Reclamation

Reclamation is the process of restoring disturbed land as closely as possible to its original condition when mining is finished.

All mine sites must be reclaimed according to applicable governmental regulations. This typically involves a number of activities including: re-shaping the land, restoring topsoil, and planting native grasses, trees or ground cover. Reclamation is done according to the approved closure and reclamation plan, which must be continuously updated by the mining company and approved by the responsible government agency.


There are heaps of sources I could post on this, but you guys get the idea. [continued...]

[Rewey]

Secondly, why do I think it’s ludicrous that tiny fragments of plane could bury themselves up to 50 feet deep in the sand?

Ask any military in the world what they use to stop bullets. SAND BAGS. That’s because the physical properties of sand are great at resisting small, fast moving objects. It is even better at stopping larger objects, due to the increased resistance to the greater surface area (This is due to the grains of sand having tiny gaps between them, which allows the sand to slightly compress, which decelerates the object more effectively than a solid object. This is why newer cars have crumple zones. A solid resisting object is more likely to shatter, ricochet or fragment the moving item… hmmm, just like what you guys claim happened to F93. Seems the ground was more solid than you think?). Therefore, how do the OS supporters claim that small fragments of the plane were able to bury themselves up to 50 feet into the sand? Maybe they assume that sand bags actually get their strength from the cotton bag that holds the sand? I don’t know. But like it or not, sand – loosely packed or otherwise – has mass. This mass needs to be displaced when something buries itself in the sand.

Further in my defence – nowhere have I ever stated that the plane should have bounced. Those who are so proud of your ‘critical thinking’ skills should really take a look at yourselves here. I was saying that the forces upon impact, particularly given that the plane struck at LESS THAN 45º, were far more likely to slam the plane onto its back than to bury itself into the soil.

I’ll use an example. A few years ago a car ran off the road and hit a limestone retaining wall about 10 houses down from mine. What happened? Did the car shatter into tiny pieces – no (and don’t go on here about the much smaller mass and momentum, I get that). But also, the car did not simply continue in a straight line passing through the retaining wall and into the soil behind it. The car deflected off the wall, leaving some smaller pieces behind, and ended up back on the street. Do I think that the car ‘bounced’? No, because I’m not a moron. If anyone wants some photographic proof, look up photos of the crash that killed F1 driver Aryton Senna, when it collided with a concrete barrier AT AN ANGLE and was deflected back into the middle of the track (and no, there were no soft tyre-walls here). Or for you North Americans, think about what happens when NASCARs collide AT AN ANGLE with the concrete barriers. Do you think the cars ‘bounce’? (I had a couple of links to help demonstrate, but can't post them in the first 15 posts...)

Look, I’ll explain it as simply as I can. Newton’s laws of motion (simplified) claim that a body will continue to move in the same direction until acted upon by another external force. A body which is acted on by another external force WILL CHANGE its direction. Guess what – the GROUND is providing that external force which will act in changing the direction of the plane. For all of you on this thread who claim I know nothing about physics, please feel free to take the time to prove Newton and myself wrong. Try it in real language, instead of:


“An idiot on this issue… who can't do physics, and has appeared to make moronic conclusions…”


Oh… an insult. I get it. Such critical thinking! And much easier than taking the time to actually demonstrate how it’s wrong.


Beachnut also provided some photos of another plane crash. Let me provide 3 simple pieces of analysis on the middle photo:

1. Firstly, the impact clearly shows DIRECTION. You can tell from the spray of dirt/debris that something with momentum crashed here. This is created by the force which I explained in my report with the yellow arrow, which you guys have mocked me for, falsely claiming that I think the plane should have bounced. Even though many of you claim the F93 crash was a 'nosedive', the FACT is that it hit at 40º, which means there is MORE SIDEWAYS MOMENTUM THAN VERTICAL MOMENTUM (We know this because the horizontal and vertical components of a force moving at an incline are calculated as the COS and SIN ratios of the angle of the incline – again, all those who think I “can’t do physics”, feel free to take a moment to prove me wrong there).

2. You can also tell that the crater in the middle is ALIGNED WITH THE PERCEIVED DIRECTION the plane would have been traveling. Although many OS supporters like to call the F93 crash a ‘nosedive’, in reality it was only at 40º. Yet for some reason there is basically NO direction discernable from the crash site, and the crater is PERPENDICULAR to the alleged direction of the plane (which is why people call them ‘wing imprints’ instead). This might result from a plane hitting at 90º to the ground, but the recovered FDR say that it was at 40º. Go figure. A FAR MORE REALISTIC VERSION would be that F93 crashed IN LINE with the crater allegedly left behind, as this would much more accurately resemble EVERY OTHER PLANE CRASH which has left a crater behind.

3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, no-one is claiming they can see a clear or discernable ‘imprint’ left behind by a part of the plane, like a tail fin, wing, engine or nosecone. Why? Because that is clearly nonsense. Yet there are STILL ‘OFFICIAL STORY’ SUPPORTERS who claim to be able to see a clear imprint of the tail fin from F93, even though when shown from a different angle, the ‘imprint’ line is not even straight, and is tens of metres long. Do I think there’s a tail fin imprint at Shanksville? No, I think it’s a stupid idea. Guess what? The people who say that are on YOUR team. I guess not everyone on the team is a Wayne Gretzky. Some of them are a Steven Goertzen.

If you can’t understand the significance of those three points TOGETHER, than I probably can’t help you. [continued...]

[Rewey]

Another inconsistency with the ‘official story’ is the usual comparison to the Pan Am 103 crash. People should look up the huge crater left by the Pan Am crash. Here’s the kicker – that massive crater, which was over 150 foot long, and displaced 730yd³ of soil WAS CAUSED JUST BY THE WINGS HITTING THE GROUND at FREEFALL SPEED and the fuel inside them exploding. Yet an ENTIRE 757-200 crashed at around 900km/h, and only left a crater 50-odd foot wide and around 3 metres deep? Why the difference?

Also, according to the official report on Pan Am 103, this explosion ‘vapourised NEARBY houses AND their footings’. House footings are made of steel-reinforced concrete, or limestone blocks in older houses. The same jet fuel that ‘vapourised’ limestone or steel-reinforced concrete NEARBY, and burnt THREE steel-framed buildings until they collapsed at roughly free-fall speed, LEFT GRASS COMPLETELY UNBURNT INSIDE THE ACTUAL POINT OF EXPLOSION and around the alleged crash site.

If you want to ridicule me because I find those two events entirely inconsistent, go right ahead. Critically think your socks off.

Here’s a better challenge for you. Why don’t you actually take the time to read through the thread on ATS and see how the discussion has actually unfolded. You can find it here:

(can't post link - sorry, but it's not hard to find...)

One final point, to leftysergeant:


“You can tell that that was originally added to the meme by a twoofer, because they show the bottom of the aircraft where the top should be”.


My God, man. Are you really that obtuse? The entire point of that image is to show that the width of the wings is three times wider than the width of the crater. Do you REALLY think they cared whether the plane was shown upside-down or not? I’m starting to think that your critical thinking is limited only to pointing out blatantly obvious and insignificant ‘errors’ to avoid answering the actual question that’s being posed. You also seem to miss the fact that the plane in the image is shown vertical, not at 40º, but as that is more consistent with the crater left behind, and therefore supports your side of the argument, it’s probably best for you not to mention that, right? Awesome critical thinking skills… Awesome objectivity… Might I say the ‘OS movement in a nutshell’?


“The soil in this picture… would have to be more compact that 5-10 year old fill”.


Again, why is it OK for you to make ASSUMPTIONS based on what you see in photos, and apparently know nothing about, but when I do the same you call me a moron? Again, awesome critical thinking…

Rewey

[JimBenArm]

So what happened to Flight 93? Where is the plane? What did they dig up from there? Where did the people on the plane disappear? What would be the purpose of faking a plane crash?

If you don't have the answer to all of those questions, all this is stupid speculation. Special emphasis on the stupid. So, please provide the answers to these questions, or admit the "discrepancies" you raise are idiotic in the extreme.

Thank you very little.

[Rewey]

If you don't have the answer to all of those questions, all this is stupid speculation. Special emphasis on the stupid. So, please provide the answers to these questions, or admit the "discrepancies" you raise are idiotic in the extreme.

You guys are just the same - I don't get why you can't see that. If I had the answers to all of those questions, there would be no discrepancy or split opinions as to what really happened. But if YOU guys had all the answers to those questions, there would be no difference of opinion either. That's the entire point. Like it or not, I am entitled to an opinion, and MY opinion is that there are a few things about the 'official story' that don't seem to add up. If you think I'm stupid for having that opinion, please feel free to provide the actual evidence to help me adjust my opinion...


So what happened to Flight 93? Where is the plane? What did they dig up from there? Where did the people on the plane disappear? What would be the purpose of faking a plane crash?

Please note very carefully - I'm NOT SAYING that F93 didn't end up in that field somewhere, somehow. What I AM saying, is that I don't believe, for a number of reasons, that the 'official version' of events is accurate. Again, if I knew exactly how, I'd tell you. But I don't (and neither do you), so I'm asking questions...

Rewey

[A W Smith]

You guys are just the same - I don't get why you can't see that. If I had the answers to all of those questions, there would be no discrepancy or split opinions as to what really happened. But if YOU guys had all the answers to those questions, there would be no difference of opinion either. That's the entire point. Like it or not, I am entitled to an opinion, and MY opinion is that there are a few things about the 'official story' that don't seem to add up. If you think I'm stupid for having that opinion, please feel free to provide the actual evidence to help me adjust my opinion...



Please note very carefully - I'm NOT SAYING that F93 didn't end up in that field somewhere, somehow. What I AM saying, is that I don't believe, for a number of reasons, that the 'official version' of events is accurate. Again, if I knew exactly how, I'd tell you. But I don't (and neither do you), so I'm asking questions...

Rewey

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1

Evidence Summary: 10 Points


1) The four hijackers purchased tickets under their own names and boarded the plane. One was randomly selected for and passed additional security screening. Ziad Jarrah was a licensed pilot and had recent training on professional large jet flight simulators. United flight 93 was scheduled to depart at 8:00 am, but left 42 minutes late due to airport traffic. Aboard were 33 passengers, 7 crew members, and 4 hijackers.

2) Several passengers and crew called from the plane, spoke with loved ones, described the hijackers' attack, and related their plan to try to retake the plane so that it would not be used as a suicide weapon against a populated area. All but two of these calls were made using the plane's seatback Airfones.

3) The cockpit voice recorder recorded the hijackers' attack and apparent murder of the pilots and a flight attendant. Air traffic controllers heard a radio transmission by a man with an Arabic accent, warning of a bomb on board. Passengers reported that one of the hijackers had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to him.

4) After learning about the other attacks, passengers and cabin crew attempted to retake the cockpit but were apparently unable to gain entry. The sound of their attempts was recorded on the CVR. The CVR also recorded the hijackers' decision to end the flight, followed by repeated shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest.") until the plane crashed. Families of victims heard the CVR recording.

5) Flight 93 was tracked by radar until it went down.

6) Many people in Pennsylvania saw the Boeing 757, traveling at low altitude and high speed, roll to the right and plummet upside-down, nose first, towards the ground. Many people witnessed the subsequent enormous explosion and fireball. Val McClatchey photographed the mushroom cloud.

7) Hundreds of first responders (mostly volunteer firefighters) and crime scene investigators were quickly on the scene. They saw human remains, aircraft wreckage, personal effects, jet fuel, etc.
The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were recovered and had usable data, all of which is consistent with the other evidence.

8) The remains of every victim was positively identified. Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller personally collected many remains and made 12 identifications through fingerprints and dental records. Personal effects of most passengers and crew were recovered and returned to their families.

9) Hijacker identification documents and personal effects were recovered, along with the remains of four people identified as the hijackers through the process of elimination.

10) Nearly all of the aircraft was recovered by professional investigators and by civilians. The debris was returned to United Airlines after being examined for evidence of explosives use.

[Grizzly Bear]

I had de javu when I entered this thread. Quick quiz for you guys... what flight made this crater?

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/7983/530200913123pm.png

[UNLoVedRebel]

Like it or not, I am entitled to an opinion, and MY opinion is that there are a few things about the 'official story' that don't seem to add up.
Welcome to 2005.

ETA: Actually, welcome to 1000 BCE. This faulty logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)--which Homeland and Rewey think gives them the logical highground-- was discovered thousands of years ago. They still prefer ignorance over knowledge.
Please note very carefully - I'm NOT SAYING that F93 didn't end up in that field somewhere, somehow. What I AM saying, is that I don't believe, for a number of reasons, that the 'official version' of events is accurate. Again, if I knew exactly how, I'd tell you. But I don't (and neither do you), so I'm asking questions...

[Stellafane]

...so I'm asking questions...


Oh jeebus, jeebus, jeebus.

The polite thing for me to do is to welcome you to the forum, at least in a perfunctory way. But despite the fact that I'm usually a reasonably well-mannered person, in this case I'm not going to do that. Because doing so would be more than a little hypocritical. You see, I'm so sick of this -- people who haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about making nonsense claims, claims that anyone with a partially functioning brain should instantly realize can only be true if hundreds of people conspired to kill thousands of innocent civilians for some murky and insane purpose.

What do you get out of this? I'm serious, I really want to know: what do you get out of this? Does it make you feel special somehow, accusing people you don't know of murder based upon some nursery-school misunderstanding of the science involved? Does the attention of a few lonely, misguided paranoids justify making such a vicious attack, while simultaneously disgracing the memory of the victims? Bear in mind, if what you're claiming is true, Todd Beamer and the other passengers lied -- indeed, they themselves where apparently in on the conspiracy. What do you think the victims' families would think of that? Does that bother you at all?

"Asking questions." I can scarcely believe that after nearly eight years after the fact, there are people still trying to justify their malicious, libelous crap under that tired old canard.

[Stellafane]

...Like it or not, I am entitled to an opinion, and MY opinion is that there are a few things about the 'official story' that don't seem to add up. If you think I'm stupid for having that opinion, please feel free to provide the actual evidence to help me adjust my opinion...

Ah, I hear the distant "doink" of a xylaphone (inside joke).

Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But not all opinions are equally meritorious, or deserve equal amounts of respect. As I suspect you would agree (perhaps not in this case, but at least in principle), an opinion based on facts, logic, and reason deserves more respect than one based on ignorance and paranoia.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Rewey--what do you think of this? Was this staged? Do you think you and the mighty truthers are about to uncover the secret plot? Are you and the heroic truthers about to put the perps to justice and have them contemplate the errors of their ways while you ride off into the sunset?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4904600.stm

[BigBird]

Evidence Summary: 10 Points

I had not seen that yet... Excellent post. Thanks!

[JimBenArm]

Oh, yes, just asking questions. Spectacularly stupid questions.

Sorry, unless there is some reason for them to have faked this, it's asinine!

[Rewey]

Oh, yes, just asking questions. Spectacularly stupid questions.

Sorry, unless there is some reason for them to have faked this, it's asinine!

I've NEVER said faked. I just don't buy the official version.

OK then - how about 'prior knowledge'? Assuming that everything unravelled just as you say it did, would you accept that the Government had prior knowledge (and therefore implying complicity), but just let it happen?

Hate to point this out to you, but have a look at how long the 'truth' about the US involvement in other wars has taken to come out? Before it's FINALLY admitted as truth. Decades.

The truth about the warnings before the sinking of the Lusitania, whilst the US claimed they had no knowledge about German uboats. No-one could believe that the US would send a passenger ship deliberately into uboat infested waters, but it's now known that they did. The truth about the knowledge of the impending Pearl Harbour attack, and the response of the US government to just let it happen, which we now know that they did. The truth about the USS Liberty attack by Israel. The truth about US operations in Loas and Cambodia during Vietnam, which is now admitted to. The truth about the US involvement with Afghanistan against the Soviets, which is now widely known. The truth about the US involvement with weapons during the Iran contra scandal, which is now admited to.

Seriously... has there EVER been a war that the US has EVER been just dragged into without any prior involvement, or prior knowledge that they were about to be attacked and therefore have their involvement and declaration of war justified? Do you think the incursion into Iraq, even though it had NOTHING to do with 9/11, would have been approved, had 9/11 not happened? If you honestly believe so, I find that naive.

A hundred years of this stuff going on, and you think there was not at LEAST prior knowledge (and therefore complicity) on this one? I find that a truly naive way of thinking. Do you really think the world believes that the 'greatest super power on Earth' was bamboozled by guys living in caves half a world away?

Rewey

[it's also noted that so far, no-one has bothered to demonstrate how my understanding of physics is wrong, as per the numerous comments that I "can't do physics"...]

[MarkyX]

Please note very carefully - I'm NOT SAYING that F93 didn't end up in that field somewhere, somehow. What I AM saying, is that I don't believe, for a number of reasons, that the 'official version' of events is accurate. Again, if I knew exactly how, I'd tell you. But I don't (and neither do you), so I'm asking questions...


Okay so basically you can't prove that Flight 93 didn't crash there, yet you still don't believe the "official story" for the sake of...not believing the official story.

I'm so used to performing mental masochist on myself. At least I don't have to listen to Linkin' Park.

[BigAl]

I've NEVER said faked. I just don't buy the official version.


Here is just some of the evidence for the basic story for Flight 93. You should familiarize yourself with and be prepared to explain how all of it is fabricated.

Some Flight 93 Evidence Updated 5/27/09
http://911links.webs.com/Flight93.htm

[1] DNA for all passangers crew found and identified
[2] The hole
[3] 95% of the airplane recovered in the hole
[4] Black boxes recovered and analyzed
[5] Video of Phanton hitting wall
[6] Lots of Flight 93 links
[[7]
[8] Analysis of Flt 93 Balck Boxes
[9] 1,200 investigators and first responders,.
[10] Remains of aircraft in storage.
[11] Papers & light objects found up to 8 miles from the crash
[12] Pictures
[13] Largest peice of Flt 93 was half a ton
[14] Coroner Statement
[15] Flight Data Recorder data and WTC data for Flt 93
[16] THE NORAD RESPONSE TO 9/11 COmplete timing and FAA info
[17] VIDEO: Eyewitnesses to Flt93 crash
[18] Phone calls from Flight 93
[19] Flight 93 Radar track
[20] Crash debris found 8 miles away
[21] Olsen Phone calls discussed
[1] --------------------------------------------------------------
DNA http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011220shanksville1220p2.asp http://preview.tinyurl.com/2fhpe8 Links to forensics and hijacker identification http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linksto911forensicsaqndvictimidentificat The hijacker's license http://bp0.blogger.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/RzjIqhqANiI/AAAAAAAAAuw/8Ve-LbpabIs/s1600-h/PA00101A.jpg

[2] --------------------------------------------------------------
The Hole: The aircraft impacted at approximately 563 mph (906 km/h), at a 40 degree angle.[26] The impact left a crater about 115 feet (35 m) wide and 10 to 12 feet (about 3.5 m) deep. There were no survivors among the 44 passengers, crew and terrorists (all were killed by the impact or had been previously killed during flight). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 http://preview.tinyurl.com/5tvkk
--- The National Park Service description of the hole:
"The crash and the subsequent investigation created
a depression approximately 85 feet by 85 feet with a
maximum depth of 27 feet ... the plane impacted the
relatively soft stripmine backfill, plowing to a depth of
30 ft, then collided with the remaining strip excavation
rock highwall, causing the plane to explode.�
http://www.nps.gov/flni/parkmgmt/upload/FINAL2--ChapterIII%20affected.pdf
[3] --------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the in the news on 9/24/2001, CNN reports 95% or the aircraft was recovered form that hole including both black boxes. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/inv.pennsylvania.site.index.html CNN.com FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) --The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered. The federal investigation into the September 11 terrorist attacks continues. Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI, according to FBI agent Bill Crowley. Crowley said the biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a 6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin, including about four windows. The heaviest piece, Crowley said, was part of an engine fan, weighing about 1,000 pounds. Flight 93 was one of four jets hijacked Sept. 11. Authorities believe the flight, which originated in Newark, New Jersey, and had been destined for San Francisco, was headed for the nation's capital, where the hijackers may have intended to slam it into the White House or the Capitol. Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller have praised the passengers of that flight, saying it appears their actions in trying to regain control of the aircraft averted a greater tragedy. People who spoke by phone with passengers after the plane was hijacked say that after the passengers found out about the earlier World Trade Center attack, they decided to try to overpower the hijackers. And officials familiar with the flight's cockpit voice recorder say it shows there was a "definite struggle," which they described as desperate and wild, between hijackers and some of the passengers. All 44 people on board the flight were killed when it slammed into the ground.
[4] --------------------------------------------------------------
Black boxes recovered and analyzed http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf Black boxes recovered and analyzed http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf Of the airliner parts, the pieces that investigators judged most significant were the plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder, both unearthed within 3 1/2 days of the crash. The voice recording that remained is being analyzed for clues to confirm the identities of the four hijackers who seized the Newark-to-San Francisco flight before it crashed. http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp
[5] --------------------------------------------------------------
Video of Phanton hitting wall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8
[6] --------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of Flight 93 links
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93shanksvillesummaryofevidence%2Cman
[7] --------------------------------------------------------------
[8] --------------------------------------------------------------
Black boxes recovered and analyzed http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf Discussed : http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102924
[9] --------------------------------------------------------------
1,200 investigators and first responders,. http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93shanksvillesummaryofevidence%2Cman
[10] --------------------------------------------------------------
Remains of aircraft in storage. Since it had no more use for it, the FBI turned the airliner debris -- but not the data and voice recorders -- over to United Airlines yesterday. Asked what United will do with the debris, airline spokeswoman Whitney Staley said, "I don't think a decision has been made ... but we're not commenting." http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp "With the recovery Friday night of the cockpit voice recorder from United Flight 93, workers at the crash site have shifted their focus to a long, arduous search for what remains of the jet and its victims. http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916otherjetnat5p5.asp
[11] --------------------------------------------------------------
Debris from the crash has been found up to 8 miles from the crash site, but searchers are concentrating on the crater where most of the remains are located. Papers and other light objects were carried aloft by the explosion after impact of the plane and they were transported by a nine-knot wind. http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916otherjetnat5p5.asp
[12] --------------------------------------------------------------
Pictures http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200061.html http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200062.html Live news coverage showing debris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeWi0JpI__M The hijacker's license http://bp0.blogger.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/RzjIqhqANiI/AAAAAAAAAuw/8Ve-LbpabIs/s1600-h/PA00101A.jpg
[13] --------------------------------------------------------------
FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said that the largest piece
of plane recovered was a shred of fuselage skin that
covered four windows -- a piece seven feet long
from a jetliner that was 155 feet long. The
heaviest piece, he said, was a half-ton section
of engine fan.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56110-2002May8&notFound=true
[14] --------------------------------------------------------------
Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says, "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service." As a funeral director, Miller says, he is honored and humbled to preside over what has become essentially an immense cemetery stretching far into the scenic wooded mountain ridge. He considers it the final resting place of 40 national heroes. He saw dust, not bodies.
[15] --------------------------------------------------------------
Flight Data Recorder data and WTC data for Flt 93 http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm
[16] --------------------------------------------------------------
THE NORAD RESPONSE TO 9/11 Compiled by Andrew Burfield http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2164577#post2164577
[17] --------------------------------------------------------------
VIDEO: Eyewitnesses to Flt93 crash (0:1:15) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxsmhnZeM6w
[18] --------------------------------------------------------------
Phone calls from Flight 93 9/11 Commission folder entitled "Flight 93 Calls - General". http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team7_Box12_93Calls_General.2.pdf
[19] --------------------------------------------------------------
Flight 93 Radar track http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/93RadarTrack.jpg
[20] --------------------------------------------------------------
Crash debris found 8 miles away
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12967.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_47536.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12942.html
[21] --------------------------------------------------------------
Olsen Phone calls discussed
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4687535#post4687535

[Rewey]

1) The four hijackers purchased tickets under their own names and boarded the plane.

None of whom appeared on the passenger manifests.

3) ...by a man with an Arabic accent, warning of a bomb on board. Passengers reported that one of the hijackers had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to him.

So there is a chance that there WAS a bomb on board? There is a chance then that this was used moments before it hit the ground? This might explain a different style of debris field...

4) ...passengers and cabin crew attempted to retake the cockpit but were apparently unable to gain entry. The CVR also recorded the hijackers' decision to end the flight, followed by repeated shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest.") until the plane crashed.

They were unable to get into the cockpit, yet the terrorists just crashed the plane instead of continuing to their original destination? Were they scared of the banging on the cockpit door? They clearly weren't afraid of dying, just loud shouting?

6) Val McClatchey photographed the mushroom cloud.

The same fireball that burnt no grass inside the actual point of explosion?

7) They saw human remains, aircraft wreckage, personal effects, jet fuel, etc.

OK - the jet fuel. This has been discussed before. (a) the EPA says that the soil at the site after clean up was 'within acceptable limits' for pollutants such as jetfuel (which is tiny - mere parts per million), (b) the soil that was used to fill the crater was the same soil that was excavated from the area, and (c) the only way to remove fuel contamination from soil is to replace it with cleanfill. Therefore, this would suggest to some that there was no spilt fuel in the area.

Just food for thought...

Rewey

[BigAl]

None of whom appeared on the passenger manifests.



Wrong. See several items in this summary.


The 19 Arab Islamist Hijackers Edited 6/22/09
http://911links.webs.com/19Hijackers.htm
Table of Contents
[1] Reading list for all the evidence we have about the hijackers.
[2] The martyrdom videos made by 7 of the hijackers.
[3] Arabic spoken in cockpits of hijacked planes.
[4] Boarding manifest for Flt11 that shows hijacker's names
[5] The names of the hijackers
[6] BBC on the names and reporting of the hijackers
[7]
[8] Status of Hijacker DNA - (2009)
[9] Answer to "At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive"
[10] bin Laden Connections to the 19 hijackers
[11] News Report on hijackers as of Nov 2, 2001
[12] Hanjour as a pilot
[13] Photo and DNA ID match of some of the hijackers.
[14] Identification of the Flt 77 hijackers
[15] Pictures of the Hanjour and another hijacker boarding the airplanes.
[16] Details of airline tickets for some of the hijackers.
If you want to knowwhy each person is on the list, read any or all of these books to get an idea of just how much evidence for who hijacked the planes and how they are connected directly to bin Laden and KSM and the American Embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Some of these names were known to the FBI even before 9/11/2001 for their crimes.

[1] ----- Essential reading list ---------------------------

The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by Lawrence
Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It by Terry Mcdermott
The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America, by James Bamford.
PBS Video on Bamford http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/program.html
Spying Blind by Amy Zegart
Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott

[2] -------Hijacker videos -------------------------------------------

This video has the martyrdom videos made by some of the hijackers.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1619489
Hijackers video wills (Scroll down to the bottom)
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Responsibility

[3] -------Arab Audio on Voice recorders --------------

We have the audio of Arabs on the recovered cockpit voice recorders.
The CVR clearly captured the words of the hijackers, including words in Arabic from the microphone in the pilot headset up to the end of the flight. The hijackers' statements, the clarity of the recording, the position of the microphone in the pilot headset, and the corresponding manipulations of flight controls provide the evidence. The quotes are taken from our listening to the CVR, aided by an Arabic speaker.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report/Notes/Part_1

[4] -----------Boarding Manifests ---------------------------

I have the boarding manifest for Flt11 that shows the names. http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/Flight_11_Manifest.gif http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/Flight_11_Manifest.gif Discussion http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124907 Flash app shows seating, calls , hijackers,
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200018.html

[5] -----Hijacker names ------------------------------

AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77
1) Khalid Almihdhar - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of San Diego, California, and New York -Alias: Sannan Al-Makki; Khalid Bin Muhammad; 'Addallah Al-Mihdhar; Khalid Mohammad Al-Saqaf 2) Majed Moqed - Possible Saudi national
-Alias: Majed M.GH Moqed; Majed Moqed, Majed Mashaan Moqed 3) Nawaf Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Wayne, New Jersey; San Diego, California -Alias: Nawaf Al-Hazmi; Nawaf Al Hazmi; Nawaf M.S. Al Hazmi 4) Salem Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Wayne, New Jersey 5) Hani Hanjour -
-Possible resident of Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, California -Alias: Hani Saleh Hanjour; Hani Saleh; Hani Hanjour, Hani Saleh H. Hanjour AMERICAN AIRLINES #11 BOEING 767
1) Satam M.A. Al Suqami- Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: June 28, 1976; Last known address: United Arab Emirates
2) Waleed M. Alshehri - Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: September 13, 1974; January 1, 1976; March 3, 1976; July 8, 1977; December 20, 1978; May 11, 1979; November 5, 1979 -Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Orlando, Florida; Daytona Beach, Florida -Believed to be a pilot
3) Wail M. Alshehri
-Date of birth used: September 1, 1968 -Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Newton, Massachusetts -Believed to be a pilot
4) Mohamed Atta - Possible Egyptian national
-Date of birth used: September 1, 1968 -Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Coral Springs, Florida; Hamburg, Germany -Believed to be a pilot -Alias: Mehan Atta; Mohammad El Amir; Muhammad Atta; Mohamed El Sayed; Mohamed Elsayed; Muhammad Muhammad Al Amir Awag Al Sayyid Atta; Muhammad Muhammad Al-Amir Awad Al Sayad
5) Abdulaziz Alomari - Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: December 24, 1972 and May 28, 1979 -Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida -Believed to be a pilot
UNITED AIRLINES #175 BOEING 767
1) Marwan Al-Shehhi
-Date of birth used: May 9, 1978 -Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida -Believed to be a pilot -Alias: Marwan Yusif Muhammad Rashid Al-Shehi; Marwan Yusif Muhammad Rashid Lakrab Al-Shihhi; Abu Abdullah
2) Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida -Alias: Fayez Ahmad; Banihammad Fayez Abu Dhabi Banihammad; Fayez Rashid Ahmed; Banihammad Fayez; Rasid Ahmed Hassen Alqadi; Abu Dhabi Banihammad ; Ahmed Fayez; Faez Ahmed 3) Ahmed Alghamdi
-Alias: Ahmed Salah Alghamdi
4) Hamza Alghamdi
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida -Alias: Hamza Al-Ghamdi; Hamza Ghamdi; Hamzah Alghamdi; Hamza Alghamdi Saleh
5) Mohand Alshehri
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida -Alias: Mohammed Alshehhi; Mohamd Alshehri; Mohald Alshehri
UNITED AIRLINES #93 BOEING 757
1) Saeed Alghamdi
-Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida -Alias: Abdul Rahman Saed Alghamdi; Ali S Alghamdi; Al- Gamdi; Saad M.S. Al Ghamdi; Sadda Al Ghamdi; Saheed Al-Ghamdi; Seed Al Ghamdi
2) Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi - Possible Saudi national
-Date of birth used: October 11, 1980 -Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida -Alias: Ahmed Alhaznawi
3) Ahmed Alnami
-Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida -Alias: Ali Ahmed Alnami; Ahmed A. Al-Nami; Ahmed Al- Nawi
4) Ziad Samir Jarrah
-Believed to be a pilot -Alias: Zaid Jarrahi; Zaid Samr Jarrah; Ziad S. Jarrah; Ziad Jarrah Jarrat, Ziad Samir Jarrahi

[6] -----------------------------------------

BBC on the names and reporting of the hijackers http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
[7] ----------------------------------

[8] ------------------------------------------------

Newsweek - Remains of the Day Nineteen hijackers died on 9/11. What should be done with what's left of them? Eve Conant From the magazine issue dated Jan 12, 2009 ...Through a combination of innovative DNA-mapping techniques, help from the FBI's crime lab and dumb luck, the scientists have now ID'd four of the 10 New York hijackers. The remains of the nine hijackers from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites have also been confirmed; six other hijackers have yet to be identified. ... http://www.newsweek.com/id/177724/output/print
[9] -----------------------------------------------

At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html BBC Response http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
[10] ----------------------------------------------------


bib Laden Connections to the 19 hijackers

[11] -------------------------------------------------------

News report as of Nov 2, 2001 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/02/attack/main316806.shtml

[12] --------------------------------------------

New York Newsday article from 9/23/01. "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said." Most of the complaints that I've seen were that he couldn't land well. Considering what he was planning on doing, I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't exactly the top of his "skills to hone" list. http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23.html Woman taught 9/11 hijacker how to fly http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=55&fArticleId=3171841

[13] -------------------------

Photo and DNA ID match of some of the pilots. This 9/11 Commission document explains how the FBI attempted to verify the hijackers identities (includes an apparent DNA match with Jarrah). http://www.scribd.com/doc/13950034/T5-B62-T-Eldridge-Files-Aliases-and-IDs-Fdr-Doc-Req-54-and-43-FBI-ID-of-Hijackers-by-Family-Members-PENTTBOM http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team5_Box62_AliasesAndIDs-FBIIDsHijackers-1.pdf

[14] ---- Identification of the Flt 77 hijackers ---------

This 9/11 Commission document includes details of a forensic examination of hijacker ID cards recovered from the Pentagon, and a list of identification documents belonging to the hijackers (passports, visas, driving licences, more). http://911myths.com/images/b/ba/Team5_Box46_Chronology_US_Identifications.pdf

[15] --------------------------------

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x34702

[16] ---------------------------------

Details in hijacker tickets. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4722224#post4722224

[A W Smith]

I've NEVER said faked. I just don't buy the official version.
the first responders, witnesses, victims family members who received phone calls from the plane are all lying then? The volunteers who collected debris, papers, personal effects were fooled by a faked crash scene?

OK then - how about 'prior knowledge'? Assuming that everything unravelled just as you say it did, would you accept that the Government had prior knowledge (and therefore implying complicity), but just let it happen?

Hate to point this out to you, but have a look at how long the 'truth' about the US involvement in other wars has taken to come out? Before it's FINALLY admitted as truth. Decades.

The truth about the warnings before the sinking of the Lusitania, whilst the US claimed they had no knowledge about German uboats. No-one could believe that the US would send a passenger ship deliberately into uboat infested waters, but it's now known that they did. The truth about the knowledge of the impending Pearl Harbour attack, and the response of the US government to just let it happen, which we now know that they did. The truth about the USS Liberty attack by Israel. The truth about US operations in Loas and Cambodia during Vietnam, which is now admitted to. The truth about the US involvement with Afghanistan against the Soviets, which is now widely known. The truth about the US involvement with weapons during the Iran contra scandal, which is now admited to.

Seriously... has there EVER been a war that the US has EVER been just dragged into without any prior involvement, or prior knowledge that they were about to be attacked and therefore have their involvement and declaration of war justified? Do you think the incursion into Iraq, even though it had NOTHING to do with 9/11, would have been approved, had 9/11 not happened? If you honestly believe so, I find that naive.

A hundred years of this stuff going on, and you think there was not at LEAST prior knowledge (and therefore complicity) on this one? I find that a truly naive way of thinking. Do you really think the world believes that the 'greatest super power on Earth' was bamboozled by guys living in caves half a world away?

We understands that you need to hate the US and attach a conspiracy to all it ever has done because of your feelings of inadequacy and powerlessness.

Rewey

[it's also noted that so far, no-one has bothered to demonstrate how my understanding of physics is wrong, as per the numerous comments that I "can't do physics"...]Ill take one point to illustrate that don't know physics. Your ridiculous sand bag and projectile comparison. First the plane is not a small projectile. It is a huge aircraft composed of many parts. Try shooting your sand bag with an automatic weapon on full auto. This reminds me of the time when I was seven and saw a construction crew installing dewatering well points using nothing but water pressure. I repeated what I had observed in my parents back yard much to their dismay using nothing but a 10 foot length of steel pipe hooked up to a garden hose. sinking it repeatedsly to its full length using only light pressure and leaving 3/4 inch holes ten foot deep all over the back yard. Are you sure you're a soil scientist and not some simple minded dirt farmer?

[Rewey]

the first responders, witnesses, victims family members who received phone calls from the plane are all lying then? The volunteers who collected debris, papers, personal effects were fooled by a faked crash scene?

Did I just say that I NEVER SAID THE PLANE DIDN'T LAND THERE? Where do you get this from???

We understands that you need to hate the US and attach a conspiracy to all it ever has done because of your feelings of inadequacy and powerlessness.

OK - I'll take umbrage to that comment. Everything I mentioned in that list was FACT. It has nothing to do with hatred or conspiracy. Are you saying that you believe that I was wrong in all of those historical examples, even though the Government agrees with me?

Ill take one point to illustrate that don't know physics. Your ridiculous sand bag and projectile comparison. First the plane is not a small projectile. It is a huge aircraft composed of many parts.

Yeah... I said that (?)

Are you sure you're a soil scientist and not some simple minded dirt farmer?

My goodness... what is it with you and reading??? I never called myself a 'soil scientist' - you guys at this forum did. Why is that so hard for you?

Rewey

[Justin39640]

(snip)

Firstly, there’s something you guys need to accept. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL STORY with regards to Flight 93. NIST didn’t bother to make a report on this one. What does this mean? (snip)

the reason for that was
the NIST makes recommendations to improve future designs and improve existing ones

they dont investigate airplane crashes
since this plane crash was a crime the NTSB handed it off to the FBI
since there was no structures involved or egress plans (or lack of) to save lives
the NIST would have no business with flight 93

ETA: i think this shows that you may not fully grasp the reality of the situations youre typing about (not to mention disrespecting the dead, and apologizing for murderous terrorists)

Secondly, why do I think it’s ludicrous that tiny fragments of plane could bury themselves up to 50 feet deep in the sand?
(snip)

BaLXL78wlbk
iHMliHpshvs

[Rewey]

Thanks for pointing out the hijackers name thing - I found another thread from your link regarding 'victim lists' as opposed to 'passenger lists'...

Rewey

[Justin39640]

dont forget
bullets bury themselves in sandbags they dont bounce off

[Rewey]

I repeated what I had observed in my parents back yard much to their dismay using nothing but a 10 foot length of steel pipe hooked up to a garden hose. sinking it repeatedsly to its full length using only light pressure and leaving 3/4 inch holes ten foot deep all over the back yard. Are you sure you're a soil scientist and not some simple minded dirt farmer?


Sorry, but I just can't let this one go. Do you even know how that works??? It has nothing to DO with pressure. The running water, when pushed into the ground, carries with it to the surface the loose grains of sand that are washed out of the hole. They are washed to the surface because the water going down the hole has nowhere to go but back up the hole again (once the surrounding soil is saturated).

So what's the point? Did Flight 93 have a garden hose attached?

Seriously... and you say I bring up dumb examples...

Rewey

[Rewey]

dont forget
bullets bury themselves in sandbags they dont bounce off

You're absolutely right there, but not 50 feet into it.

[LashL]

Oh jeebus, jeebus, jeebus.

The polite thing for me to do is to welcome you to the forum, at least in a perfunctory way. But despite the fact that I'm usually a reasonably well-mannered person, in this case I'm not going to do that. Because doing so would be more than a little hypocritical. You see, I'm so sick of this -- people who haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about making nonsense claims, claims that anyone with a partially functioning brain should instantly realize can only be true if hundreds of people conspired to kill thousands of innocent civilians for some murky and insane purpose.

What do you get out of this? I'm serious, I really want to know: what do you get out of this? Does it make you feel special somehow, accusing people you don't know of murder based upon some nursery-school misunderstanding of the science involved? Does the attention of a few lonely, misguided paranoids justify making such a vicious attack, while simultaneously disgracing the memory of the victims? Bear in mind, if what you're claiming is true, Todd Beamer and the other passengers lied -- indeed, they themselves where apparently in on the conspiracy. What do you think the victims' families would think of that? Does that bother you at all?

"Asking questions." I can scarcely believe that after nearly eight years after the fact, there are people still trying to justify their malicious, libelous crap under that tired old canard.

This bears repeating in its entirety. So, here it is.

Ah, I hear the distant "doink" of a xylaphone (inside joke).

Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But not all opinions are equally meritorious, or deserve equal amounts of respect. As I suspect you would agree (perhaps not in this case, but at least in principle), an opinion based on facts, logic, and reason deserves more respect than one based on ignorance and paranoia.

This also bears repeating in its entirety. So, here it is.

[Rewey]

Does the attention of a few lonely, misguided paranoids justify making such a vicious attack, while simultaneously disgracing the memory of the victims?... What do you think the victims' families would think of that? Does that bother you at all?

I can scarcely believe that after nearly eight years after the fact, there are people still trying to justify their malicious, libelous crap under that tired old canard.


You know what? You would have been one of those people in 1915 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice over a thousand people JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the sinking of the Lusitania was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1941 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice thousands of servicemen JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Pearl Harbour was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in the 60s saying "There's NO WAY the government would kill hundreds of civilians and engage in domestic terrorism JUST so they could overthrow a neighbouring government", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that Operation Northwood was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1964 saying "There's NO WAY the government would make up an imaginary torpedo attack JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1993 saying "There's NO WAY the government would know about a truckbomb heading for the WTC and just let it happen", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the WTC bombing was exactly that.

You know what? You can hassle me all you like about 'disgracing the memory of the victims', and whatever other emotive language you want to use, but at the end of the day, the track record speaks for itself. IN EVERY OTHER CASE it was people like YOU who ended up disgracing the memory of the victims with your ignorance...

You all carry on like 8 years is an eternity... Believe it or not, it's still within the statute of limitations for crimes such as murder, so the courts don't agree with you that it's too long for the truth to come out. For all of the examples above, the truth took decades to come out. The same will happen here... You blindly stand up for the government - what has it ever done for you? Seriously?

[jhunter1163]

Someone here doesn't KNOW as much as he thinks he does.

[T.A.M.]

None of whom appeared on the passenger manifests.

So you have seen the manifest? You state they did not appear on them, so please show us the copies of the manifests so we can confirm what you have said.

No don't bother, as I know you cannot. The fact is the closest ANYONE in the public domain has to the passenger manifests (not the victim list from CNN) are the passenger lists that McDermmott got from the FBI, which do reveal the hijackers. Your comments are so 2006.


So there is a chance that there WAS a bomb on board? There is a chance then that this was used moments before it hit the ground? This might explain a different style of debris field...

He also said they would be returning to the airport to have their demands met, did he not (or at least one of the hijackers did)? That didn't happen, so why is his comment of a "bomb on board" to be taken any differently then an attempt at passenger control (just like the airport/demands comment).


They were unable to get into the cockpit, yet the terrorists just crashed the plane instead of continuing to their original destination? Were they scared of the banging on the cockpit door? They clearly weren't afraid of dying, just loud shouting?

speculate much? Ok, while we are "speculating" what YOU think they should have done, here is what I speculate,

I speculate that they panicked, and in that panic, decided that rather then let the passengers in the cockpit, where they would be overwhelmed, and possibly (thinking in their panicked state) lose control of the aircraft back to the passengers, they decided to make sure they at least killed all on board, if they could not make it to their predefined target.

So how long before we find out you are a Dom or CIT sockpuppet? Or are you just one of the half dozen or so people foolish enough to believe their tripe?

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

Sorry, but I just can't let this one go. Do you even know how that works??? It has nothing to DO with pressure. The running water, when pushed into the ground, carries with it to the surface the loose grains of sand that are washed out of the hole. They are washed to the surface because the water going down the hole has nowhere to go but back up the hole again (once the surrounding soil is saturated).

So what's the point? Did Flight 93 have a garden hose attached?

Seriously... and you say I bring up dumb examples...

Rewey

Was the fuel on flight 93 a liquid or a solid genius?

[JimBenArm]

You're absolutely right there, but not 50 feet into it.
So, would you like to compare the mass and kinetic energy of a bullet to that of a commercial airliner? Do you really think this is a valid comparison? Really? Really and truly?

Here's an exercise for you. I know that goes against your normal mode of operation, but try it anyway. Calculate the mass and inertia of a bullet, say a 9 millimeter from a handgun. Find out how far it would penetrate into said sandbags. Now, calculate the same thing for said airliner. I'm somewhat certain the values you come up with will be a tad bit larger than those for the projectile. Also, for extra credit, see if you can figure out how much further into the sandbag the pieces of the airliner will go after the fuel-air explosion after the crash. Bet it's even further. Of course, I'm only speculating. Nothing wrong with just asking questions, is there?

The only thing surprising about the 50 foot value is that it was ONLY 50 feet. At least to people with working brain stems.

[sleahead]

Hate to point this out to you, but have a look at how long the 'truth' about the US involvement in other wars has taken to come out? Before it's FINALLY admitted as truth. Decades.

The truth about the warnings before the sinking of the Lusitania, whilst the US claimed they had no knowledge about German uboats. No-one could believe that the US would send a passenger ship deliberately into uboat infested waters, but it's now known that they did.



Did they really claim they knew nothing about the danger despite a warning (http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci1/notice.jpg)from the German embassy being published in US newpapers?

No, the US did not send the Lusitania into dangerous waters. It was a British ship. Here is a list of the US ships sunk or damaged prior to the US declaration of war:

January 27, 1915: Schooner William P. Frye, gross 3,374 tons; captured by German auxiliary cruiser Prinz Eitel Friedrich (commerce raider) in South Atlantic, southeast of Brazil. Sunk January 28, 1915; no casualties

May 1, 1915: Steamship Gulflight, tanker, gross 5,189 tons; torpedoed by German submarine U-30, 20 miles west of Scilly Islands; towed in; 3 killed.

May 25, 1915: Steamship Nebraskan, gross 4,409 tons; torpedoed by German submarine 40 miles south by west of Southcliffe, off southwest; salvaged; no casualties.

July 25, 1915: Steamship Leelenaw, gross 1,923 tons fired on, torpedoed and sunk by German submarine off the north coast of Scotland about 60 miles northwest of the Orkney Islands; no casualties.

August 4, 1915: Pass of Balhamas, motor vessel, gross 1,571 tons, voluntarily surrendered by the master to a German submarine in the North Sea; converted into raider Seeadler; wrecked August 2, 1917; no casualties.

October 28, 1916: Steamship Lenao (Philippine steamship), gross 692 tons; bombed and sunk by a German submarine 30 miles off Cape Vincent, Portugal; no casualties.

November 7, 1916: Steamship Columbian, gross 8,673 tons; bombed and sunk by German submarine U-49, 50 miles northwest of Cape Ortegal, Spain, no casualties.

November 26, 1916: Steamship Chemung, gross 3,061 tons; torpedoed and sunk with gunfire by Austrian submarine in Mediterranean, 14 miles east of Cape de Gata, no casualties.

January 4, 1917: Steamship Norlina, gross 4,596 tons; damaged by torpedo fired by German submarine U-88 in Atlantic Ocean about 180 miles northwest of Inishtrahull Island off the north coast of Ireland, did not sink; no casualties.

January 13, 1917: Steamship Nyanza, damaged by gunfire from German submarine; 1 wounded.*

February 3, 1917: Steamship Housatonic, gross 3,143 tons; bombed and sunk by German submarine U-53, 20 miles south of Bishops Light off Scilly Islands, Great Britain, no casualties.

February 12, 1917: Lyman M. Law, schooner, gross 1,300 tons; captured and sunk by German submarine U-35 in the Mediterranean about 25 miles from land near Cagliari, Sardinia, no casualties.

March 12, 1917: Steamship Algonquin, gross 2,832 tons; sunk with gunfire and bombs by German submarine U-62, 65 miles west of Bishops, off Scilly Islands, Great Britain, no casualties.

March 16, 1917: Steamship Vigilancia, gross 4.115 tons; torpedoed and sunk by German submarine U-70, 145 miles west of Bishops, off Scilly Islands, Great Britain; 15 killed.

March 17, 1917: Steamship City of Memphis, gross 5,252 tons; sunk with gunfire by German submarine (UC type), 33 miles south of Fastnet, Ireland; no casualties.

March 18. 1917: Steamship Illinois, tanker, gross 5,225 tons; sunk with bombs by German submarine (UC type) in the English Channel, 20 miles north of Alderney, Channel Islands; no casualties.

March 21, 1917: Steamship Healdton, tanker, gross 4,489 tons; torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine 25 miles north of Terschelling, Holland, 20 killed.

April 1, 1917: Steamship Aztec, gross 3,727 tons; torpedoed and sunk by an enemy submarine (UC type), off Ushant Light, Quessant Island, northwest coast of France; 28 killed.

April 4, 1917: Marguerite, schooner, gross 1,553 tons; sunk with bombs by German submarine U-35 in the Mediterranean, 35 miles southwest of Sardinia; no casualties.

April 4, 1917: Steamship Missourian, gross 7,924 tons; shelled with gunfire and sunk by German submarine U-52 in the Mediterranean, near Porto Maurizio, Italy, no casualties.

April 7, 1917: Steamship Seward, gross 3,390 tons; bombed and sunk by German submarine U-52 in the Gulf of Lyons, Mediterranean Sea, about 25 miles east of Port Vendres, France, or 22 miles northeast of Cape Bagur, Spain; no casualties.

April 7, 1917: Edwin R. Hunt, schooner, gross 1,132 tons; sunk with gunfire by German submarine UC-25 in the Mediterranean 40 miles off Cape de Gata, Spain; no casualties

[LightinDarkness]

Oh god, yet another twoofer who absolutely failed political science and public policy. First of Rewey, no one believes you blindly "stumbled" upon JREF, you were googling your own posts because you have a ego that is larger than that of most twoofers.

You know what? You would have been one of those people in 1915 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice over a thousand people JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the sinking of the Lusitania was exactly that.

Yes, I am ABSOLUTELY SURE the government would not fake terrorists attacks to get into a war where we gain absolutely nothing. Instead, if we just wanted to fake something to get into a war, a much smarter thing to do would to fake a foreign invasion via carpet bombing a town or two.

Failed history too. Don't twoofers usually use wikipedia to back up their sources. Have you read the wiki on the RMS Lusitania? Guess what, even Wikipedia acknowledges there is no evidence the United States government did anything to get it sinked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania


And you would have been one of those people in 1941 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice thousands of servicemen JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Pearl Harbour was exactly that.

What we have here folks is full blown woo. No, the United States didn't sacrafice anyone to get into a war. Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan.


And you would have been one of those people in the 60s saying "There's NO WAY the government would kill hundreds of civilians and engage in domestic terrorism JUST so they could overthrow a neighbouring government", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that Operation Northwood was exactly that.

Bzzt. WRONG AGAIN! Operation Northwoods was never officially adopted or carried out.


And you would have been one of those people in 1964 saying "There's NO WAY the government would make up an imaginary torpedo attack JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was exactly that.

WRONG! There were indeed real attacks at the Gulf, the second attack claim was exaggerated.


And you would have been one of those people in 1993 saying "There's NO WAY the government would know about a truckbomb heading for the WTC and just let it happen", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the WTC bombing was exactly that.

WRONG! This did not happen anywhere except in twoofer imaginations.

And this is why no one will ever take you, ATS, or twoofers seriously, Rewey. Because from start to finish, you lie and distort and present things that are not real. None of the above were examples of the government doing anything to get us into a war. None of them.


You know what? You can hassle me all you like about 'disgracing the memory of the victims', and whatever other emotive language you want to use, but at the end of the day, the track record speaks for itself. IN EVERY OTHER CASE it was people like YOU who ended up disgracing the memory of the victims with your ignorance...

Yes, the track record does speak for itself: In EVERY OTHER CASE THE HISTORICAL RECORD SHOWS YOU ARE A LIAR.


ou blindly stand up for the government - what has it ever done for you? Seriously?

Actually, at JREF we stand up for reality. You, on the other hand, blindly rage against the machine.

[Pinch]

You know what? You would have been one of those people in 1915...

And you would have been one of those people in 1941...

And you would have been one of those people in the 60s...

And you would have been one of those people in 1964...

more historical revisionism snipped.

Rarely have I seen history so completely butchered through ignorance and selective annotation of conspiracy fantasies. It seems like every historical event was referenced in nothing more than its worst concoction by the CT'ers. I'll grant that many events of the past have anomalies in or about them - it is the nature of life - the same that 9/11 has anomalies in and about it, not to mention the human element in any of these events. Pursuing those anomalies to a conclusion that is always the absolute worst and assuming human decision making is *always* in a nefarious mode is nothing more than poor scholarship and ignorant reading of the past. People who are so fixed in hating their government regardless what facts or evidence is available are, really, sad and should stay away from the intellectual heavy lifting of the questions of the day.

[JimBenArm]

>snip< and should stay away from the intellectual heavy lifting of the questions of the day.
Oh, don't worry. They do. After all, all they do is ask questions. Really, really stupid questions. Then ignore the answers.

[kookbreaker]

In what version of history did the USA enter WW1 in 1915?

[Justin39640]

You're absolutely right there, but not 50 feet into it.

So, would you like to compare the mass and kinetic energy of a bullet to that of a commercial airliner? Do you really think this is a valid comparison? Really? Really and truly?

Here's an exercise for you. I know that goes against your normal mode of operation, but try it anyway. Calculate the mass and inertia of a bullet, say a 9 millimeter from a handgun. Find out how far it would penetrate into said sandbags. Now, calculate the same thing for said airliner. I'm somewhat certain the values you come up with will be a tad bit larger than those for the projectile. Also, for extra credit, see if you can figure out how much further into the sandbag the pieces of the airliner will go after the fuel-air explosion after the crash. Bet it's even further. Of course, I'm only speculating. Nothing wrong with just asking questions, is there?

The only thing surprising about the 50 foot value is that it was ONLY 50 feet. At least to people with working brain stems.

sand is natures kevlar lol
yeah i cant understand why he cant understand why it happened that way

a bullet going just above the speed of sound buries itself say 5 inches
a bullet is a few grams
what happens when an object hits sand thats hundreds of thousands of kilograms?
it buries much further (say... 50 feet?)
and the parts didnt hit the ground individually they were still one whole airplane

you never answered the 1st part of what i pointed out to you in post 59 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4876128&postcount=59)
the reason for that was
the NIST makes recommendations to improve future designs and improve existing ones

they dont investigate airplane crashes
since this plane crash was a crime the NTSB handed it off to the FBI
since there was no structures involved or egress plans (or lack of) to save lives
the NIST would have no business with flight 93

ETA: i think this shows that you may not fully grasp the reality of the situations youre typing about (not to mention disrespecting the dead, and apologizing for murderous terrorists)

seeing your concepts and beliefs are obviously WRONG there (you should understand the NIST's mission before you wrongly criticize what it did or didnt do)
wouldnt you go back at that point and reanalyze what you think to look for other errors? (esp after having all of your errors pointed out in B&W here and esp if youre ideas only came from sites with "911 truth" in the title or addy)

[Justin39640]

In what version of history did the USA enter WW1 in 1915?

lol
whats history when you have the "truth?"
just make it up as you go along lol

[Stellafane]

You know what? You would have been one of those people in 1915 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice over a thousand people JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the sinking of the Lusitania was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1941 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice thousands of servicemen JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Pearl Harbour was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in the 60s saying "There's NO WAY the government would kill hundreds of civilians and engage in domestic terrorism JUST so they could overthrow a neighbouring government", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that Operation Northwood was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1964 saying "There's NO WAY the government would make up an imaginary torpedo attack JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1993 saying "There's NO WAY the government would know about a truckbomb heading for the WTC and just let it happen", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the WTC bombing was exactly that.

You know what? You can hassle me all you like about 'disgracing the memory of the victims', and whatever other emotive language you want to use, but at the end of the day, the track record speaks for itself. IN EVERY OTHER CASE it was people like YOU who ended up disgracing the memory of the victims with your ignorance...

You all carry on like 8 years is an eternity... Believe it or not, it's still within the statute of limitations for crimes such as murder, so the courts don't agree with you that it's too long for the truth to come out. For all of the examples above, the truth took decades to come out. The same will happen here... You blindly stand up for the government - what has it ever done for you? Seriously?

Wow -- from "just asking questions" mode to full-scale bug-eyed spittle-flying "all-history-as-CT, wake-up-sheeple!!" rant in one single post! That's got to be some sort of record.

You happen to be 100% correct in that I am "one of those people" you describe. You see, I don't base my beliefs on simply imagining what might have happened; I actually like to see a little something called "evidence." Which, I'm afraid, is in very short supply regarding the things you claim. Until you produce such evidence (and no, the paranoid delusions of some obscure CTers don't count) then you KNOW nothing; what you IMAGINE is another question entirely (and not one I care to go into too deeply, frankly).

Although I have to ask: Why didn't you lay your CT cards on the table when you came here? Why did you pretend that you were just "asking questions" about Shanksville and not making any claims that anything malicious happened? In other words, why did you follow lockstep in the same overworn and obvious path as countless Truthers before you? Did you actually think for a nanosecond we didn't see this coming 10 miles away?

[Rewey]

First of Rewey, no one believes you blindly "stumbled" upon JREF, you were googling your own posts because you have a ego that is larger than that of most twoofers.

Actually, I googled "Shanksville physics" to find out more about it, and it was the second option... feel free to try it yourself.

Failed history too. Don't twoofers usually use wikipedia to back up their sources. Have you read the wiki on the RMS Lusitania? Guess what, even Wikipedia acknowledges there is no evidence the United States government did anything to get it sinked

Well, gosh, if Wikipedia says so... How can you ridicule 'twoofers' for using it, then use it reliably yourself? The ads placed by the German embassy in the US newspapers warning about u-boat attacks were a response to reports to the German embassy that armaments were being carried as cargo on a passenger ship. Look it up... and try somewhere other than Wikipedia... who do you think was loading armaments on to the Lusitania, headed for England? It was an extension of the lend-lease scheme.

What we have here folks is full blown woo. No, the United States didn't sacrafice anyone to get into a war. Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan.

Of course it was attacked by Japan, but you need to look into the McCollum memo. FDR knew where the Japanese naval fleet was heading. He just didn't tell those in Hawaii. A diary entry by Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan." Does this not equate to 'sacrificing' to you? It does to me...

Bzzt. WRONG AGAIN! Operation Northwoods was never officially adopted or carried out.

Of COURSE it wasn't carried out. My God. But it showed the lengths that were considered in order to overthrow a foreign government. The fact that it was even considered by those in command should surely be bad enough?

WRONG! There were indeed real attacks at the Gulf, the second attack claim was exaggerated.

I never said there weren't real attacks - but look further into the incident which sparked US involvement...

The funny thing is, I bet if I mentioned the Nazi's burning the Reichstag building for political benefit, you'd probably all agree, right? Is that just because they were the 'bad guys'?


Everyone here seems to be forgetting the "friendly and lively way"...

[Rewey]

In what version of history did the USA enter WW1 in 1915?

The Lusitania was the first of three events which were required to change the public US perception of the war, as much of the public held to the US's traditional policy of isolationism.

This was followed by the Zimmerman telegram, and the sinking of more US merchant ships. It was after this that the US declared war...

[leftysergeant]

Besides the fact that those comments are obviously in violation of the T&C’s of this site (awesome moderating), I get the feeling there are a few people here who feel proud that they are critical thinkers for no other reason that they post their thoughts on a website which claims it’s for critical thinking.

You were not at that time a member, and we will not apologize, especially in light of the way you are acting now. There is no violation of the terms and conditions. Don't get uppity about our natural reaction to your assertions.

And leftysergeant, with regards to me drifting to the Pentagon from time to time – this was stated in the report as being well off topic. For those who continued with the thread on ATS, you’d also know that when someone pointed out evidence contrary to what I’d said, I THANKED THEM AND AMENDED MY REPORT. You see, unlike most people on both sides of the 9/11 debate, when someone points out evidence to show I’m wrong, I actually go back and amend my paper. I don’t immediately abuse the **** out of them. I’m currently working on Revision 1, which I’d hoped to finish tonight, but thought I’d better say a few things here instead. [continued...]

You don't get to do that. It has been nearly eight years. There is no excuse for you to be spewing Bunel's crap at people anymore. No one with a brain that works right has claimed that the plane went through six concrete walls in YEARS.

[sleahead]

The funny thing is, I bet if I mentioned the Nazi's burning the Reichstag building for political benefit, you'd probably all agree, right? Is that just because they were the 'bad guys'


And I bet you'd be wrong.


Everyone here seems to be forgetting the "friendly and lively way"...


I resent that 'everyone'. However, as a Freeman on the Land, I reserve the right to deal with you any way I see fit.;)

[kookbreaker]

The Lusitania was the first of three events which were required to change the public US perception of the war, as much of the public held to the US's traditional policy of isolationism.

This was followed by the Zimmerman telegram, and the sinking of more US merchant ships. It was after this that the US declared war...

So....you say it was a false flag operation that the Germans admitted doing, warned us they would do, with the net result that we would enter the war in 2-1/2 years.

Right.

[leftysergeant]

Secondly, why do I think it’s ludicrous that tiny fragments of plane could bury themselves up to 50 feet deep in the sand?

The plane hit in one piece. Deal with it.

In 1940, Paul Klipsch, a British pilot, was shot down over France. His Spitfire MkI buried itself ten feet deep in hard clay soil, compressed from thirty feet into a pile of scrap metal only five feet tall.

And you don't think an even larger, heavier aircraft is going to bury itself deeper into relatively looser glacial till?

http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b351/spanlib/th_doglaugh.gif

3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, no-one is claiming they can see a clear or discernable ‘imprint’ left behind by a part of the plane, like a tail fin, wing, engine or nosecone. Why? Because that is clearly nonsense. Yet there are STILL ‘OFFICIAL STORY’ SUPPORTERS who claim to be able to see a clear imprint of the tail fin from F93, even though when shown from a different angle, the ‘imprint’ line is not even straight, and is tens of metres long. Do I think there’s a tail fin imprint at Shanksville? No, I think it’s a stupid idea. Guess what? The people who say that are on YOUR team.

The stupid people are the ones who do not see that the dirt is pushed up into a pile along the down-range edge of the crater.

[Justin39640]

YaAzKpTMmYU

historical arguments dont correct the obvious flaws in your hypothesis of flight 93

you are wrong on many many levels

take it as a learning lesson

do some critical thinking including questioning your own beliefs

we all did it with the official story and found it holds up (when starting at a completely neutral and unbiased point)

we also did the same with the "truth?"s story and found it to be ridiculous

so 8 years later
yeah youre gonna get ripped to shreds over dumb assertions

[dtugg]

Of course it was attacked by Japan, but you need to look into the McCollum memo.

The McCollum memo was written in 1940. All it proves is that one guy in the Navy thought it would be a good idea to provoke Japan into attacking. It shows nothing of foreknowledge.

FDR knew where the Japanese naval fleet was heading. He just didn't tell those in Hawaii.

There is no evidence of that whatsoever. Furthermore, since RADAR technology was in its infancy, and the Japanese maintained radio silence, tracking them was impossible.

A diary entry by Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan." Does this not equate to 'sacrificing' to you? It does to me...


So? As Secretary of the Interior, he had little to nothing to do with military matters. And besides, him thinking that the best way into the war was through Japan does absolutely nothing to show that they knew about the attack beforehand.

This whole they knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen crap doesn't even pass the common sense test. If they knew about it, they could have moved the ships out of the harbor and attacked first, likely sinking several aircraft carriers. This would have been a huge victory for the US and Congress would have still declared war.


The funny thing is, I bet if I mentioned the Nazi's burning the Reichstag building for political benefit, you'd probably all agree, right? Is that just because they were the 'bad guys'?

If you said that, I would say that you are again demonstrating your poor grasp of history.


Everyone here seems to be forgetting the "friendly and lively way"...

I see no reason to be friendly towards someone who is spewing lies and apologizing for terrorists.

[T.A.M.]

Everyone here seems to be forgetting the "friendly and lively way"...

There is nothing "Friendly and lively" about discussing false accusations of mass murder...sorry. You want "Friendly and lively", then take your Woo to "disney" forums.

TAM

[Justin39640]

There is nothing "Friendly and lively" about discussing false accusations of mass murder...sorry. You want "Friendly and lively", then take your Woo to "disney" forums.

TAM
looking for a friendly debate on a subject as this is kind of disgusting in itself

though
i think we do the best we can to keep it light
i often hold back and have to edit several times to attempt to avoid breaches of my membership agreement
this subject gets me very angry
esp when someone halfway around the world disrespects my dead neighbors and accuses the FDNY of murdering their own

again living here you know lots of firemen AND THEY WOULD BE ANYTHING BUT LIVELY AND FRIENDLY TOWARDS TRUTHERS for making such accusations

there was an old video i cant find anymore of a truther at GZ, he was wearing a suit and had long hair holding a sign or something, a man who appeared to be a fireman was gonna kill the guy but the crowd held him back, any1 have that linked?

that old man in i think markys video woulda done some damage too
he was not happy with the GZ TMers

[Comsat Angel]

" - who do you think was loading armaments on to the Lusitania, headed for England? It was an extension of the lend-lease scheme - "

Which, amazingly, didn't come into existence until 1941.

FAIL!

Keep it up, this is hilarious.

(NB The British had paid for the ammunition on the Lusitania - it would have been churlish not to deliver it).

[Justin39640]

" - who do you think was loading armaments on to the Lusitania, headed for England? It was an extension of the lend-lease scheme - "

Which, amazingly, didn't come into existence until 1941.

FAIL!

Keep it up, this is hilarious.

(NB The British had paid for the ammunition on the Lusitania - it would have been churlish not to deliver it).

those roman numerals are tricky (I/II) lmao

[leftysergeant]

Another inconsistency with the ‘official story’ is the usual comparison to the Pan Am 103 crash. People should look up the huge crater left by the Pan Am crash. Here’s the kicker – that massive crater, which was over 150 foot long, and displaced 730yd³ of soil WAS CAUSED JUST BY THE WINGS HITTING THE GROUND at FREEFALL SPEED and the fuel inside them exploding.

No. The crater was made by the fuselage and some of the structural damage was done by the wings. And a crash resulting from an explosion in flight is just naturally going to look different from a controlled flight into terrain. To give you some idea what I am talking about, Flt 103 was like a beer keg dropped from miles up. Flt 93 was an enormous freaking lawn dart.

Yet an ENTIRE 757-200 crashed at around 900km/h, and only left a crater 50-odd foot wide and around 3 metres deep?

Where did you get those figures?

Why the difference?[.QUOTE]

The soil at Shanksville was looser than that at Lockerbie. The plane pushed it up, and it fell back down around the tunnel that the fuselage dug.

To address the vegetation and why it did not catch fire, bear in mind that the explosion would have taken most of the oxygen out of the air, making it almost impossible to start a fire until the air rushed back in.

[QUOTE]Again, why is it OK for you to make ASSUMPTIONS based on what you see in photos, and apparently know nothing about, but when I do the same you call me a moron? Again, awesome critical thinking…

You don't get to do that here. I have experience in airfield fire and rescue operations. I have seen what can happen to the structure of an aircraft in a crash. You obviously haven't. Just stop acting like anexpert. You are obviously no rocket scientist, so don't be lecturing us.

[Pinch]

" - who do you think was loading armaments on to the Lusitania, headed for England? It was an extension of the lend-lease scheme - "

Which, amazingly, didn't come into existence until 1941.

FAIL!

Keep it up, this is hilarious.

(NB The British had paid for the ammunition on the Lusitania - it would have been churlish not to deliver it).

You beat me... You posted this probably as I was on my way to work. Curse you.

My only addition would be to advise Rewey that these sorts of mistakes (perhaps it was another US Government scheme they kept hidden from the people!) are only one of the reasons why people laugh at you and your silly ideas. Credibility demands specificity, and when you are 25 years wrong on something like "Lend Lease", there is no way possible you can be considered credible. Keep it up, though. Its entertaining.

Perhaps next time you can blame the Korean War the Downing Street memos.

[kookbreaker]

Actually, I googled "Shanksville physics" to find out more about it, and it was the second option... feel free to try it yourself.



Well, gosh, if Wikipedia says so... How can you ridicule 'twoofers' for using it, then use it reliably yourself? The ads placed by the German embassy in the US newspapers warning about u-boat attacks were a response to reports to the German embassy that armaments were being carried as cargo on a passenger ship. Look it up... and try somewhere other than Wikipedia... who do you think was loading armaments on to the Lusitania, headed for England? It was an extension of the lend-lease scheme.

Lend lease was not until much later than WW1. And anyway, what was your point? You've been trying to paint the Lusitania as some kind of 'false-flag' operation when it was simply a victim of circumstances, namely that munitions we sold to the Brits happened to be on a ship that also had American passengers.


Of course it was attacked by Japan, but you need to look into the McCollum memo. FDR knew where the Japanese naval fleet was heading.


And what magical powers gave him this ability? Lemme guess, you read Stinnet, or more likely read posts by someone who read Stinnett. Let me tell you: Stinnett is painfully wrong.


Of COURSE it wasn't carried out. My God. But it showed the lengths that were considered in order to overthrow a foreign government. The fact that it was even considered by those in command should surely be bad enough?


Don't be naive. The things considered by nations but never executed would go back as far as history is recorded. Practicality and humanity often wins out over these plans.


The funny thing is, I bet if I mentioned the Nazi's burning the Reichstag building for political benefit, you'd probably all agree, right? Is that just because they were the 'bad guys'?


You might want to read up a bit. Hitler exploited the incident, to be sure, but the evidence is that the Reichstag probably was burned by a deranged communist.

[MarkyX]

Of COURSE it wasn't carried out. My God. But it showed the lengths that were considered in order to overthrow a foreign government. The fact that it was even considered by those in command should surely be bad enough?


Considered? Operation Northwoods was REJECTED by those in charge.

[Justin39640]

No. The crater was made by the fuselage and some of the structural damage was done by the wings. And a crash resulting from an explosion in flight is just naturally going to look different from a controlled flight into terrain. To give you some idea what I am talking about, Flt 103 was like a beer keg dropped from miles up. Flt 93 was an enormous freaking lawn dart.



Where did you get those figures?

[QUOTE] Why the difference?[.QUOTE]

The soil at Shanksville was looser than that at Lockerbie. The plane pushed it up, and it fell back down around the tunnel that the fuselage dug.

To address the vegetation and why it did not catch fire, bear in mind that the explosion would have taken most of the oxygen out of the air, making it almost impossible to start a fire until the air rushed back in.



You don't get to do that here. I have experience in airfield fire and rescue operations. I have seen what can happen to the structure of an aircraft in a crash. You obviously haven't. Just stop acting like anexpert. You are obviously no rocket scientist, so don't be lecturing us.

as far as the ground coming up
id like to point out the videos i linked in post 59 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4876128&postcount=59)
aside from lookin real cool they give some insight

so you have a ball bearing dropping into a uniform sand pile with no other material

then add the variables of 93 (plane mass, shape, angle of impact, ground consistency, humidity?, etc etc etc lol) and you get the idea

[Crazytimes]

Rewey can you do me a couple of favors.

First, can you admit you were wrong about the passenger manifests ?
Then when you admit you were wrong, can you promise to never make the claim that none of the hijackers were on the passenger manifests ever again ?

It seems a lot of truthers get debunked on very simple things and they know they are wrong, ignore it and move on to another lie. Then when discussing at another time, they go and repeat the same BS they were debunked on. Why is that ?

Truther - Do you know that debris was found up to eight miles away and that just isn't possible ?

Debunker - No, it is possible. Look into flight 1771 which had a similar debris field. Debris was found up to eight miles away and crashed in a similar way.

Truther - Do you know witnesses saw a military jet in the vicinity ?

One month later

Truther - Do you know that debris was found up to eight miles away and that just isn't possible ?

Debunker - :rolleyes:

[triforcharity]

I've NEVER said faked. I just don't buy the official version.
......Removed icohearant blabbering..........
Seriously... has there EVER been a war that the US has EVER been just dragged into without any prior involvement, or prior knowledge that they were about to be attacked and therefore have their involvement and declaration of war justified? Do you think the incursion into Iraq, even though it had NOTHING to do with 9/11, would have been approved, had 9/11 not happened? If you honestly believe so, I find that naive.

A hundred years of this stuff going on, and you think there was not at LEAST prior knowledge (and therefore complicity) on this one? I find that a truly naive way of thinking. Do you really think the world believes that the 'greatest super power on Earth' was bamboozled by guys living in caves half a world away?

Rewey

[it's also noted that so far, no-one has bothered to demonstrate how my understanding of physics is wrong, as per the numerous comments that I "can't do physics"...]

How about WWI and II. We were savagely attacked by the Japaneese on 7 Dec 1941 in Pearl Harbour. Sure, we had some suspicions, but by the time the intelligence figured it out, it was too late.

WWI, well, we didn't want anything to do with that crap.

I suspect you have some hatered of Americans. Fess up sir.

BTW, if someone presents you with evidence of a plane crash, and you don't believe it, what would your conclusion be?? That it was faked, staged, or some other trickery?? Come on. Do you also believe that something other than the planes hit the Twin Towers in NYC?? (Take into consideration that I was there, heard the first one hit, and saw the second one, saw 2 of the three buildings fall, and saw 343 of my Brothers die that day, so tread softly.)

[Arus808]

please get this back on to Flight 93. discuss the political reasons or conspiracy reason for WWI or WWII or JFK or whatever is other threads or in the main conspiracy forum

[triforcharity]

PS, Operation Northwood was never put into action, and the guy who suggested it was fired.

PSS, Can you point me to one article where the US Government said anything of the sort about Pearl Harbour???

[lapman]

PS, Operation Northwood was never put into action, and the guy who suggested it was fired.

PSS, Can you point me to one article where the US Government said anything of the sort about Pearl Harbour???
Mind you that Operation Northwoods only had an option of killing a few refugees. It generally called for all deaths to be fabricated.

[triforcharity]

Good point Lapman.

[kookbreaker]

How about WWI and II. We were savagely attacked by the Japaneese on 7 Dec 1941 in Pearl Harbour. Sure, we had some suspicions, but by the time the intelligence figured it out, it was too late.


We had a very good indication that the Japanese were going to try something, but the strong suspect was that they would attack the Phillipines, not a base thousands of miles East of the Phillipines.

Sadly, many CTers seem to think that if we knew something was up, we had to know exactly what was going down. Somehow 'Japanese are planning something' = 'knowing exactly where the Japanese fleet is down to the smallest submarine'.

[Pinch]

We had a very good indication that the Japanese were going to try something, but the strong suspect was that they would attack the Phillipines, not a base thousands of miles East of the Phillipines.

Sadly, many CTers seem to think that if we knew something was up, we had to know exactly what was going down. Somehow 'Japanese are planning something' = 'knowing exactly where the Japanese fleet is down to the smallest submarine'.

Many of the Troothers of today seem to think that capabilities of intelligence and spycraft we have become used to now in the 21st century were available in the middle of the 20th.

An excellent article that outlines the extent and success the Japanese had with keeping their Pearl Harbor-bound fleet, Kido Butai, a mystery is an article by Robert J. Hanyok titled "Catching The Fox Unaware, Japanese Radio Denial and Deception and the Attack on Pearl Harbor", published in the Naval War College Review, Autumn 2008, linked to here. (https://portal.nwc.navy.mil/press/Naval%20War%20College%20Review/2008/Hanyok%20NWCR%20Au08%20web.pdf).

It is pure folly and ignorance to believe that the US knew about the attack details previously and subsequently did not act to prevent the attack on Pearl Harbor. In an age where radio was the primary means of communication and when you are estranged from a nation 5,500 miles away that wants to keep its military movements secret, it was actually very easy to stay hidden all the way up to 7 December.

[LightinDarkness]

Actually, I googled "Shanksville physics" to find out more about it, and it was the second option... feel free to try it yourself.

I did and it was no where to be found. Busted again. Googling your own posts to see what other threads you can troll instead of just preaching to the choir on ATS.



Well, gosh, if Wikipedia says so... How can you ridicule 'twoofers' for using it, then use it reliably yourself? The ads placed by the German embassy in the US newspapers warning about u-boat attacks were a response to reports to the German embassy that armaments were being carried as cargo on a passenger ship. Look it up... and try somewhere other than Wikipedia... who do you think was loading armaments on to the Lusitania, headed for England? It was an extension of the lend-lease scheme.

Logic seems to fail you. The point is the standard of proof for twoofers like yourself - beyond simply making up the physics as you go along - is wikipedia. When even Wikipedia doesn't agree with you, you really have got nothing.



Of course it was attacked by Japan, but you need to look into the McCollum memo. FDR knew where the Japanese naval fleet was heading. He just didn't tell those in Hawaii. A diary entry by Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan." Does this not equate to 'sacrificing' to you? It does to me...

As its already been pointed out: this is another failure of yours. The McCollum member proves 1 member of the government thought it was a good idea to attack Japan. Like Operation Northwoods, it never occurred nor was adopted. This is what you CTs cant seem to understand: just because an idea appears in government doesn't mean it gets implemented and followed.



Of COURSE it wasn't carried out. My God. But it showed the lengths that were considered in order to overthrow a foreign government. The fact that it was even considered by those in command should surely be bad enough?

No, this is the essential fallacy in CT thinking. "Because we talked about something, this must mean it happened." Please tell me how the secret government is capable of keeping secret that Operation Northwoods was carried out but yet leaves delicious morsels for CTs like you find about the original proposal.



I never said there weren't real attacks - but look further into the incident which sparked US involvement...

I have and you are wrong.


The funny thing is, I bet if I mentioned the Nazi's burning the Reichstag building for political benefit, you'd probably all agree, right? Is that just because they were the 'bad guys'?

The difference is its this thing called "proof". We have evidence that this occurred, where as we have 0 evidence any of your other claims occurred.


Everyone here seems to be forgetting the "friendly and lively way"...

And you from post one forgot the "a place to discuss CRITICAL THINKING." I have yet to see any post of yours that involves any critical thinking.

[dudalb]

http://bike29.com/ride29er/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/wile-e-coyote460.jpg


And then a small cloud of dust goes upward...
Always loved that bit.

[Gaspode]

WW1&2 conspiracy theories would be better in another thread. Thanks.

[Rewey]

Rewey can you do me a couple of favors.

First, can you admit you were wrong about the passenger manifests ?
Then when you admit you were wrong, can you promise to never make the claim that none of the hijackers were on the passenger manifests ever again ?


Already have - on the second page... feel free to have a browse... more than happy to make that promise.

Not sure what the other favours are...?

[alienentity]

Secondly, why do I think it’s ludicrous that tiny fragments of plane could bury themselves up to 50 feet deep in the sand?

etc...

]

You brought this ridicule on yourself by putting those points out there on the web, dude.
You can't call foul because someone dug them out of the sand and posted them here for entertainment. That's fair play. No need to soil yourself over it.

Perhaps you've simply overstated your case (I do that often) but the opening paragraph of the quoted material really begs for derision.

'In conclusion, given my experience with, and understanding of soil, through my work-related experiences, and my understanding of physics from previous study, the official story of the crash of Flight 93 at Shanksville could simply not be possible. When considering all aspects together the official story is utter nonsense'

Just goes to show why being an expert in soil isn't helping you. A better acquaintance with the facts of the story would help a lot more.

Exit Sandman.

[Gravy]

Actually, I googled "Shanksville physics" to find out more about it, and it was the second option... feel free to try it yourself.You could have avoided this embarrassing situation by Googling before writing. The answers to your questions have been readily available for years. There is no excuse for not having found them.

OK - the jet fuel. This has been discussed before. (a) the EPA says that the soil at the site after clean up was 'within acceptable limits' for pollutants such as jetfuel (which is tiny - mere parts per million), (b) the soil that was used to fill the crater was the same soil that was excavated from the area, and (c) the only way to remove fuel contamination from soil is to replace it with cleanfill. Therefore, this would suggest to some that there was no spilt fuel in the area.

"Betsy Mallison, a DEP spokeswoman, said it cost United Airlines $850,000 for the environmental investigation and remediation at the site of the crash in an old strip mine."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/oneyearlater/s_90857.html


He can remember his first time there, 10.45am, Tuesday, September 11 * the stench of jet fuel, still puddled on the ground, the smell of the burnt and smouldering trees and grass, the silence of nature and the men who had arrived to find they could do nothing, the overwhelming evidence that a Boeing 757, 55 metres long and weighing 110 tonnes, had somehow been obliterated, and with it, the 44 people on board.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/1031115990570.htmlUpon arrival, firefighters found small pieces of the plane, spot fires, and a large quantity of fuel scattered across a wide debris field.

http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdfShanksville Fire Chief Terry Shaffer called the local 911 center and headed for the scene, where he recalled "a smell that you'll never forget — a smell of jet fuel, burned flesh."

http://enigma911.110mb.com/cache/abcnews/sept11_moments_3.html

Excerpts from "Courage After the Crash: Flight 93" by Glenn J. Kashurba. SAJ Publishing, 2002.

King: "We stopped and I opened the door. The smell of jet fuel was overpowering. I will never forget that smell; it is really burnt into my mind. ...I walked down the power line and got my first glimpse of human remains. Then I walked a little further and saw more."

Shanksville VFD firefighter Keith Curtis: "I walked up to where the tire was on fire, probably a hundred feet past the crater. It was a big tire. I was thinking that this is a big jet. I hit it good with the hose and put it out. I stopped and 'poof,' it just started on fire again."

Firefighter Mike Sube: "We made our way to a small pond. That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there. ...There were enough fires that our brush truck was down there numerous times. ...I saw small pieces of human remains and occasionally some larger pieces. That was disturbing, but what was most disturbing was seeing personal effects."

Lieutenant Roger Bailey, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department: "We started down through the debris field. I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail...Mail was scattered everywhere. ...the one guy who was with us almost stepped on a piece of human remains. I grabbed him, and he got about half woozy over it."

"There was a spot at the end where the emergency crews were gathering. I could see that it was smoking and burning a little bit. So I ran as fast as I could towards that spot. I ran right up to the crater. I was standing a few feet away, looking down into it. I was overwhelmed by the crater's depth and size, but there was nothing that I could identify as having been an airplane, except that there was this incredibly strong smell of jet fuel."

Bill Baker, Somerset County Emergency Management Agency: "The jet fuel smell was really strong...There were plane parts hanging in the trees."
"The blackened hemlock trees in the background of those pictures once marked our property line. Now they have been cut down as a result of fire damage and pollution from jet fuel...

My visit to the property is nearly a month after the crash, but there are ever-present reminders of the horrible event that destroyed the lives of 40 innocent people and the innocence of millions. The smell of jet fuel fills my nostrils. Everywhere I look, tiny pieces of debris cover the soft dirt. Coroner Miller tells me 98 percent of the plane has been recovered, but it is hard to believe that."

–Tim Lambert, whose family owned land at the crash site.

http://www.witf.org/lifestyle/central-pa-magazine/995-pennsylvanias-ground-zero-voices-central-pa-magazine-november-2001 Bolding mine. There's much more at the flight 93 section of my site (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1). But you knew that already.

A few questions for you, Rewey:

1) What do the above accounts suggest to you about the presence of jet fuel at the site?

2) Which people who were at the site shortly after the crash did you interview?

3) Where can we find the final environmental report issued by United Airlines?

4) Can you present (what is to you) a sensible scenario that fits the existing evidence and does not involve flight 93 crashing in that field?


Everyone here seems to be forgetting the "friendly and lively way"...The JREF wishes the Forum to be a friendly and lively (if challenging) Forum for a mature audience and therefore will endeavor to ensure that civility will be the norm, however this does not mean that Members will be insulated from all insults and certainly not from challenges; the nature of the forum inevitably involves strong emotions and opinions which can result in heated exchanges.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744

[Travis]

Gravy is dishing it out with Facts Artillery.


This new guy is going to be fun.

[Rewey]

I did and it was no where to be found. Busted again. Googling your own posts to see what other threads you can troll instead of just preaching to the choir on ATS.


I hate to be so petty to prove something so banal, but anyway...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_331274a534d965744a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16883)

[JimBenArm]

But you'll do it anyway, just to be consistent...

[GlennB]

I hate to be so petty to prove something so banal, but anyway...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_331274a534d965744a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16883)

It's an easy misunderstanding to happen.

you didn't Google "Shanksville physics" ,
you Googled Shanksville physics

The first would only return hits containing that exact 2-word phrase. The latter would get what you got. The moral is - don't put what you Googled into quotation marks unless you actually used the quotation marks.

Next - kindly address Gravy's post about the many reports of large amounts of aircraft fuel at the site. Ta.

[BigAl]

I hate to be so petty to prove something so banal, but anyway...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_331274a534d965744a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16883)

Please address Gravy's points.

[Rewey]

A few questions for you, Rewey:

1) What do the above accounts suggest to you about the presence of jet fuel at the site?

2) Which people who were at the site shortly after the crash did you interview?

3) Where can we find the final environmental report issued by United Airlines?

4) Can you present (what is to you) a sensible scenario that fits the existing evidence and does not involve flight 93 crashing in that field?


Finally - someone who can write back without the insults. Nice site of yours by the way - I just had a read through it today. Some great research in there.

If you really want to know, and you're happy to listen for a bit, I'm happy to explain what bothers me about the jet fuel in the soil.

I'm always sceptical about relying on interviews, as you guys probably would be as well. After all, how many people have claimed to see military planes, or all-grey planes with no windows flying into the WTC towers. Look at the discrepancies in the description of F77. There's even one guy who claims he saw Flight 93 hit the ground, and saw the cockpit break off and bounce into the woods...

There are a number of people who also claim that there was a large quantity of jet fuel spilled at the scene, which accounts for witnesses claiming a strong smell of jet fuel when they arrived at the site.


On 3 October 2001, an article made the following claims:

“By today, Environmental Resources Management Inc. of Pine, a contractor hired by United, expects to return 5,000 to 6,000 cubic yards of soil to the 50-foot hole dug around the crater left by the crash.

The soil is being tested for jet fuel, and at least three test wells have been sunk to monitor groundwater, since three nearby homes are served by wells, Betsy Mallison, a state Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman, said.

So far, no contamination has been discovered, she said” .


One year after the event, on September 11, 2002, the Department of Environmental Protection made the following report:

“Site samples indicate that the site meets Pennsylvania's Act 2 statewide health standards for soil and groundwater for the fuel known as jet "A" fuel. We consider cleanup work at the site completed.

United Airlines' site investigation included tests on samples of soil, sediment and groundwater in the immediate crash impact area, and also in the areas lying in the south and southeast corners of the site. The areas tested included a sediment pond drained during the FBI site investigation.

Soil sampling areas included the excavated pit, the area surrounding the pit and the backfill material.

‘The backfill material was made up mostly of soil and dirt excavated from the pit during the criminal investigation,’ Duritsa said ”.


From my reading, and depending on time available, there are two recognised means of removing jet fuel contamination from soil. The first is a remediation system using a combination of ground water pumping, air injection, and soil vapour extraction. The entire process is lengthy, taking many months to complete.

The second, and easiest, is to remove the contaminated soil, and replace it with cleanfill.

On October 3, the contractor began filling in the Shanksville site. The DEP article notes that the backfill material used was the same that was excavated from the site. Given the inordinately lengthy remediation process, there is no chance that this would have been implemented by October 3, less than a month after the alleged crash. Therefore, as far as I'm aware (and please correct me if I'm wrong), for there to be no traces of jet A fuel in that backfill, which was not cleanfill and had not had time to have been cleaned by the remediation methods, there could not have been any there in the first place.

Further, the DEP saying that the site 'meets the requirements' doesn't necessarily mean that there was jet fuel there before, and now it's gone. It could also mean that there never was jet fuel in the ground. It is very easy to test for Kerosene based products like Jet A Fuel. Therefore TO ME, the article from October 3 saying that none had been found yet seems a little strange.

So that's where I'm coming from. That will obviously offend some people on this site, as I clearly haven't evolved to the same level of existence as them, but Gravy, as you asked - that's what I find strange about it... if you're happy to continue in your earlier civilised manner, I'd be happy to learn from you...

Rewey

[Rewey]

The moral is - don't put what you Googled into quotation marks unless you actually used the quotation marks.


Fine. Whatever. But don't you think LightinDarkness could have tried it without the quotation marks before he jumped in and called me a liar? Was that REALLY all it took to stump him?

Rewey

[edit] Seriously - if I'd done that, you guys would be jumping all over me... how about out of objectivity you guys take care of your own once in a while?

[Justin39640]

Rewey
the people who saw military planes or no windows were miles away
no one up close said that
my friend watched the 2nd plane hit from the observation deck of lincoln center
he saw it was clearly a passenger plane 100 blocks away

seeing they probably sifted through every grain of that 50 foot hole that was dug looking for evidence and remains
maybe half that job was already done making it easier just to use the same fill rather than binging in a few trucks

and you say there was fuel at the rate of just a few PPM of soil
how much cubic area can a million grains of sand fit into? (for everybody)

[TexasJack]

I'm always sceptical about relying on interviews, as you guys probably would be as well. After all, how many people have claimed to see military planes, or all-grey planes with no windows flying into the WTC towers. Look at the discrepancies in the description of F77. There's even one guy who claims he saw Flight 93 hit the ground, and saw the cockpit break off and bounce into the woods...


Eyewitness accounts can be unreliable, (but in Gravy's post, he does list trained professionals as witnesses) unless it can be corroborated with physical evidence. Here we have a ton, DNA from the passengers, FDR, telephone calls, plane parts found at the scene, etc. You call this utter nonsense, I call it solid evidence. Being skeptical about soil analysis will never trump this evidence, so the question is, how do you explain away all this evidence?

[dtugg]

Being skeptical about soil analysis will never trump this evidence, so the question is, how do you explain away all this evidence?

It was all faked/planted! It's easy being a twoofer.

[Rewey]

and you say there was fuel at the rate of just a few PPM of soil


No, no... I said that for the EPA to be satisfied that the contamination was fine, the levels of jet fuel left in the soil would have to be tiny - only mere parts per million. You can get the excel spreadsheet from the EPA website which lists accurately the tolerance levels for different contaminants.

Rewey

[Rewey]

Eyewitness accounts can be unreliable, (but in Gravy's post, he does list trained professionals as witnesses) unless it can be corroborated with physical evidence.

Here's a trained professional as well:

Two weeks after the tests began, DEP spokeswoman Betsy Mallison reported that "no contamination has been discovered." She said that, "whether it burned away or evaporated," much of the jet fuel assumed to have spilled at the site "seems to have dissipated."

But no-one arriving at the site immediately after the crash spoke of large fires burning off this surface fuel, which would have burnt with large black plumes of smoke, being kerosene based.

Rewey

[Rewey]

It was all faked/planted! It's easy being a twoofer.

Seriously - this is what I mean... How is this helpful discussion at all?

[Justin39640]

No, no... I said that for the EPA to be satisfied that the contamination was fine, the levels of jet fuel left in the soil would have to be tiny - only mere parts per million. You can get the excel spreadsheet from the EPA website which lists accurately the tolerance levels for different contaminants.

Rewey

great how much area can you fit a million grains of sand into?

[Justin39640]

Seriously - this is what I mean... How is this helpful discussion at all?

thats the friendly and fun part here at JREF :D
no but seriously

when you make accusations of firemen, beat cops, etc etc etc being involved in mass murder and cover up
friendly tends to go out the window

sorry
but when you put yourself out there like that
dont expect a nice response or be shocked when you get a negative one

[JimBenArm]

>snip< which would have burnt with large black plumes of smoke, being kerosene based.

Rewey
Like this?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_127934a53608240eef.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16887)

Nope. No fire. No smoke that anyone ever saw or reported. Gee, if only someone had snapped a photo of it...

[leftysergeant]

Actually, dtug was just pointing out how little new any twoofer has managed to offer as evidence in these discussions.

We have heard most of what you have had to say before, but rarely in such an absurd format. You have not offered the first bit of new evidence to support those points at which we were laughing when you popped in here. Do not, therefore, be too surprised when we express a feeling of deja-moo about it all.

[Justin39640]

Actually, dtug was just pointing out how little new any twoofer has managed to offer as evidence in these discussions.

We have heard most of what you have had to say before, but rarely in such an absurd format. You have not offered the first bit of new evidence to support those points at which we were laughing when you popped in here. Do not, therefore, be too surprised when we express a feeling of deja-moo about it all.

deja-WOO? lol

[dtugg]

Seriously - this is what I mean... How is this helpful discussion at all?


I never said it was supposed to be. But then again, that is pretty much your answer, correct, twoofer? Everything was faked, because well, your fantasy requires everything to be faked. And we all know you won't abandon your fantasy.

[alienentity]

Here's a trained professional as well:



But no-one arriving at the site immediately after the crash spoke of large fires burning off this surface fuel, which would have burnt with large black plumes of smoke, being kerosene based.

Rewey

Didn't she say 'burned or evaporated?'

What happened to evaporated?

Anyway, I note that while you've praised Gravy, you haven't ha the courtesy to answer the 4 questions, even though you quoted them.

I hope you're not trying to suggest that, due to some inconsistencies in the reports of jet fuel, fly 93 didn't crash there. That would be very foolish.

[Rewey]

Nope. No fire. No smoke that anyone ever saw or reported. Gee, if only someone had snapped a photo of it...

Come on JimBenArm... you know as well as I do that Val McClatchy's photo is showing the initial fireball from the impact. That is NOT the burning of the 'puddles of jet fuel' which people allegedly saw when they arrived at the scene.

That looks more like this...



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_331274a5368a480628.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16888)

[JimBenArm]

So the initial fireball wasn't a fire, and the smoke plume wasn't smoke?

Wow, the things you learn on the internet...

[Rewey]

We have heard most of what you have had to say before...


Does that mean it's all been addressed and answered? Because that's what I'm actually looking for. Or has it all been heard before, and summarily dismissed before?

If you've got the answers help me out, or point me to the thread where it's solved. I couldn't find it actually answered anywhere here...

Rewey

[JimBenArm]

Of course, he didn't look very hard, either.

[Rewey]

So the initial fireball wasn't a fire, and the smoke plume wasn't smoke?

Wow, the things you learn on the internet...

WHAT THE? How much clearer can I make it? The quotes from Gravy said people found lots of puddles of jet THAT WEREN'T BURNING when they arrived. This is the jet fuel that should have shown up in soil testing.

Of course, he didn't look very hard, either.

In other words, you don't know where it is either...

What happened to evaporated?


Given that you guys keep saying the sand was 'loosely packed', these puddles would soak into the soil very quickly. This means that the fuel contamination would be still within the soil...

[Rewey]

great how much area can you fit a million grains of sand into?

Hmmm... not sure exactly what you're after here, but here's a photo of 3,281,579 grains of sand:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/331274a536bf30f8cc.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16889)

Make of that what you will.

Please also note that 'Parts', as in 'Parts Per Million' does not equate to grains. It does not relate to the size of the medium. Otherwise a few PPM in bricks would be a lot smaller ratio than a few PPM in sand. But anyway...

Rewey

[leftysergeant]

Does that mean it's all been addressed and answered? Because that's what I'm actually looking for. Or has it all been heard before, and summarily dismissed before?

It has been addressed, discussed by persons both with and without fire fighting experience. Those of us with fire fighting experience dismiss the absurd assumption that there should have been massive fuel fires still burning at the site with ease as absurd.

Most of the fuel did not puddle in the crater. It landed on the road and in the woods and in some grass down-range. There would have been too little oxygen left in the area to support ignition immediately after the deflagration of the fuel aerosolized in the crash. That which landed in an area with an ignition source would have been subject to ignition.

This is jet fuel we are talking about, okay? It is not gasoline. You can throuw jet fuel on a small fire and extinguish it.

DO NOT try that with gasoline.

Val's photo is good. Killtown's assessment of it is well-rotted bullflops.

[leftysergeant]

Given that you guys keep saying the sand was 'loosely packed', these puddles would soak into the soil very quickly. This means that the fuel contamination would be still within the soil...

The ground was not sand. It was glacial till. It contains clay. It was probably a little damp, as such normally is in that part of the country.

That is not going to be very absorbent of an oil of any sort. Your knowledge of soils is looking far shakier than your self-reported curiculum vitae would suggest.

I have poured a lot of jet fuel onto soil and lit it, then extinguished the fires, just for drill. Even in the sandy soil of North Africa, the least bit of moisture in the soill retarded the absorbtion of JP-4.

[leftysergeant]

deja-WOO? lol

Deja-moo(noun) The impression that we have heard this bull before.

[Justin39640]

Deja-moo(noun) The impression that we have heard this bull before.

how bout this then
"deja-BOOOOOOOOO"
lol

[Justin39640]

It has been addressed, discussed by persons both with and without fire fighting experience. Those of us with fire fighting experience dismiss the absurd assumption that there should have been massive fuel fires still burning at the site with ease as absurd.

Most of the fuel did not puddle in the crater. It landed on the road and in the woods and in some grass down-range. There would have been too little oxygen left in the area to support ignition immediately after the deflagration of the fuel aerosolized in the crash. That which landed in an area with an ignition source would have been subject to ignition.

This is jet fuel we are talking about, okay? It is not gasoline. You can throuw jet fuel on a small fire and extinguish it.

DO NOT try that with gasoline.

Val's photo is good. Killtown's assessment of it is well-rotted bullflops.

he had a question in his paper too (in the OP)
why did the tail hit the ground, why wasnt it vaporized in the "explosion" (paraphrased)
the plane hit at 550 mph or so? (maybe more i forget off hand)
but at that speed it was moving at 808 feet per second
at 155 feet of plane that means from the nose first touching to the entire plane being down was about 1/4 of a second
the atomized fuel would have taken longer to ignite completely (fireball)

[alienentity]

Rewey - burned or evaporated. Your own quote contained those ideas. Yet they seem to have evaporated before you comprehended them.

Can you at least allow that the fuel might have evaporated? Why bother using expert opinion if you're going to ignore it? I don't follow the logic.

It also does not seem to have occurred to you that the reports of jet fuel 'smell' indicate that it was evaporating. It was clearly spread out over a large area, fairly diffused. This is another clue as to why the ppm in soil were not as high as you think they should've been.

There are a number of reasonable explanations for these phenomena that do not require 'conspiracy','inside job' or 'false flag' alarms. Try those first, not last.

[alienentity]

Come on JimBenArm... you know as well as I do that Val McClatchy's photo is showing the initial fireball from the impact. That is NOT the burning of the 'puddles of jet fuel' which people allegedly saw when they arrived at the scene.

That looks more like this...



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_331274a5368a480628.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16888)

First, you should be careful not to use an example that isn't comparable. In the picture you offer, the fuselage of the jet is clearly visible, indicating a much different scenario.

It would make much more sense to find other high angle, high speed crashes to compare to. That is if you want something useful.

Also, your picture shows a jet on fire. No such scenario existed at Shanksville, and nobody has implied that. Gravy provided nothing which indicated large pools of burning jet fuel.

Where is your critical thinking? So far I'm not seeing much.

[alienentity]

. That is NOT the burning of the 'puddles of jet fuel' which people allegedly saw when they arrived at the scene.


Can you please find the reports of burning puddles of jet fuel you refer to (presumably in Gravy's post).
I can't find them. I see reports of the smell of jet fuel, references to spot fires and smoke.
No burning puddles of jet fuel.

Where'd you come up with that? Please don't make things up. That's not nice.


Oh, and please answer Gravy's four questions, or you're being disrespectful to one person who was respectful to you.

[Justin39640]

hes coming up with a lot
from those questions in post #1 it seems that
a: he thinks the plane was in pieces before it hit
b: that the fuel should have stayed with in the confines of the plane
:confused:

[triforcharity]

Leftysargent is correct. You CAN put a fire out with Kerosene. Kerosene is simmilar to diesel fuel. Diesel fuel is FLAMEABLE but not EXPLOSIVE. Gasoline, on the other hand, is VERY explosive. Reason?? Gasolines "flash" point is very low and very fast, lots and lots of fumes. Diesel, on the other hand, has a very high flash point, (meaning just a small spark will not light it-hence GLOWPLUGS on a diesel truck) and very slow. You could pour a gallon of both fuels in a line, light them both at the same time, and the gas one will reach the other end of it's line WELL before the diesel.

But, I digress.....

[TexasJack]

Here's a trained professional as well:



But no-one arriving at the site immediately after the crash spoke of large fires burning off this surface fuel, which would have burnt with large black plumes of smoke, being kerosene based.

Rewey
Wow, the irony of your response is very telling, and proves my point at the same time. You cherry-picked one part of my post, which was a side-note and missed the crux of my question. Again, your picking one piece of evidence and dismissing the mountain of other evidence--the DNA, the FDR, the phone calls, etc. At the same time, you can't explain what happened to Flight 93 or the passengers, if not Shanksville, then where? Why are there plane parts and DNA of the passengers there? Is all this evidence "utter nonsense" as you put it? You have to weigh all the evidence, not just cherry-pick one piece.

Let me give you analogy of what you are attempting to do. You have client who is accused of murdering someone. Here is the evidence: your client hated the victim, there are witnesses who saw him stab him, his DNA is found on the victim, your client initially denies killing him, but later confesses, an expert says he was stabbed by a 5-inch blade. And your defense: you have one expert who says it can't be 5-inch blade, but a 4-inch blade, so he's innocent. In fact your claiming it isn't even the same victim.

[Justin39640]

Leftysargent is correct. You CAN put a fire out with Kerosene. Kerosene is simmilar to diesel fuel. Diesel fuel is FLAMEABLE but not EXPLOSIVE. Gasoline, on the other hand, is VERY explosive. Reason?? Gasolines "flash" point is very low and very fast, lots and lots of fumes. Diesel, on the other hand, has a very high flash point, (meaning just a small spark will not light it-hence GLOWPLUGS on a diesel truck) and very slow. You could pour a gallon of both fuels in a line, light them both at the same time, and the gas one will reach the other end of it's line WELL before the diesel.

But, I digress.....

glow plugs dont actually light the fuel
the compression in a diesel engine is very high (typically 20 something to 1 verses a gas engine which is about 10 or so to 1)
when you combine that compression with heat
the atomized fuel/ air mix ignites (its unstable at high compression)
the glow plugs are just a starting aid for a cold engine
it preheats the combustion chamber for maximum burn efficiency
some diesels have an inline fuel heater
some have neither

when a cold diesel starts up you get an incomplete burn and the result is heavy white smoke

this is how the Ok city bomb worked as well
the dynamite creates the compression that blows the fuel
fertilizer adds the heat to the mix
VERY POWERFUL

[Rewey]

The ground was not sand. It was glacial till. It contains clay.

'Clay' and 'contains clay' are very different.


glacial till
accumulations of unsorted, unstratified mixtures of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders

There's plenty in there that would absorb jet fuel...

[leftysergeant]

There's plenty in there that would absorb jet fuel...

Yeah, when it's dry.

[Rewey]

Again, your picking one piece of evidence and dismissing the mountain of other evidence--the DNA, the FDR, the phone calls, etc. At the same time, you can't explain what happened to Flight 93 or the passengers, if not Shanksville, then where? Why are there plane parts and DNA of the passengers there?

Please note carefully - I have never said that it's not the wreckage of Flight 93 there. I'm not saying it just disappeared, and I'm not one of the fruitloops who thinks the Government hid the plane and shot/gassed the passengers (which I've heard some people claim, one of which was even in a 'doco').

I'm just very curious as to whether there's another way the plane could have come down in the field. Is it AT LEAST POSSIBLE that parts of the plane had broken up before impact? Even if at a very low altitude before impact (not suggesting the 'shoot-down' idea here)?

[Justin39640]

Please note carefully - I have never said that it's not the wreckage of Flight 93 there. I'm not saying it just disappeared, and I'm not one of the fruitloops who thinks the Government hid the plane and shot/gassed the passengers (which I've heard some people claim, one of which was even in a 'doco').

well theres hope for you yet then lol
i personally lean slightly LIHOP cause that could be as simple as someone standing at a fax machine, grabbin a printout, crumpling it up, and shooting a 3 pointer into the waste paper basket

i do 99% believe it was just a complete FUBARing of intel


I'm just very curious as to whether there's another way the plane could have come down in the field. Is it AT LEAST POSSIBLE that parts of the plane had broken up before impact? Even if at a very low altitude before impact (not suggesting the 'shoot-down' idea here)?

nope
how could it?
why would a plane break up right before it hit? it didnt
since many ppl saw an intact aircraft seconds before impact
the ground broke it up
nothin else
if it broke up prior i think the debris would have been more spread out and you might even have large pieces left (like flight 103's cockpit)

it went through the ground like it was a piece of beef through a meat grinder

[Rewey]

Can you at least allow that the fuel might have evaporated? Why bother using expert opinion if you're going to ignore it? I don't follow the logic.

Of course, but look at what happens when liquids evaporate. Think about salt lakes, which there are lots of in the US. It occurs when there is salt water on the surface. Different elements evaporate at different temps. When the water evaporates, it leaves behind the 'contaminant' (salt, in this case). So even if the jet fuel evaporates, it's not like its entire presence disappears - there are contaminants left behind. These would appear in the soil testing, just as salt would appear in testing salt lake soil.

This is another clue as to why the ppm in soil were not as high as you think they should've been.

But the quotes that Gravy put in did not say they were 'fairly diffused'. They specified puddles, implying quite large areas of fuel sitting on the ground.

First, you should be careful not to use an example that isn't comparable

Yes, I get that. What I was showing was that jet fuel (in large quantity) doesn't simply explode - that's why the photo I put in shows a long, dense plume of smoke. Leftysergeant also confirms this property of jet fuel, I believe.

Can you please find the reports of burning puddles of jet fuel you refer to (presumably in Gravy's post).

Please re-read that post, because that's the opposite of what I'm saying.

The point I was trying to make is that Val McClatchy's photo shows the smoke from the initial explosion when the plane crashed. The witnesses who got there apparently saw big puddles of jet fuel which were NOT burning. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that THESE puddles burned away, as there would be long plumes of smoke, and the people would have said they saw 'burning puddles', not 'puddles of jet fuel'...

Rewey

[leftysergeant]

I'm just very curious as to whether there's another way the plane could have come down in the field. Is it AT LEAST POSSIBLE that parts of the plane had broken up before impact? Even if at a very low altitude before impact (not suggesting the 'shoot-down' idea here)?

Too remote a chance to be considered, given the way it buried itself and the data on the FDR showing all systems nominal at time of impact. Without structural integrity near 100% it would have spattered like any other aircraft in a high-speed controled flight into terrain.

[Rewey]

i personally lean slightly LIHOP

So we're in the same boat then? What I don't get is why people keep saying I'm insulting New York firefighters because I believe the plane may not have crashed in one piece? Using stupid emotional nonsense like that does nothing for the cause, does it? Just like No Plane retards and Rocket Pod idiots do nothing for the other side of the fence.

So let's look at something here. Would there be ANY reason for the Government to even slightly alter the events as they unfolded in Flight 93? I believe there could be.

There's a terrific quote from a book which has always stuck with me (I can't remember the book but I think it may have been 'the art of war') which talks about the psychological effect on the population after such events.

What the country needs at that time (and the politicians benefit from) is a completely unified emotion in the people. In other words, even if the government were completely justified in shooting down F93 (and I'm not saying that's what happened) there will always be those in society who will feel great anger and derision at the government. Look at the response to US servicemen during and following the Vietnam War. This was because A FEW horrifying incidents were given precedence in the public eye over all the other efforts that were being made during the war.

What those in power would benefit from in such a case, particularly IF they were going to use changing public sentiment to begin a push into Iraq, is completely unified public sentiment. What better way than to champion the 'let's roll' hero story of F93. It's a fantastic story of heroism that the population can rally behind.

But is there actually any evidence that those people were able to make it inside the cockpit? My understanding is that there is none, particularly as the last moments of the CVR were never made public. Maybe the truth is far less 'romantic'?

Look, let's face it. Everyone's seen dozens of different camera angles of the WTC's being hit. All the government would have to do to shut down all the nutjobs is release the footage confiscated from the camera on the hotel roof opposite the Pentagon, instead of just the 5 or so ambiguous frames from the side-on camera. Would that be any more horrifying or disrespectful than the WTC images? This is what breeds conspiracy theories - the suppression of information. Look at what people still talk about with regards to the Zapruder film, and how it took something like a decade to release it. Now half of the population seem to think it was to give the feds time to fake/alter it. The longer the hotel footage is suppressed, the less likely it is to convince the nutjobs when it finally IS released... It just becomes one more source of ongoing conspiracy...

Rewey

[triforcharity]

Yes, they very well could have made it into the cockpit. Those doors (pre-9/11) were not THAT strong. (I have experience with firefighting in airplanes. Pre-9/11, you could hit it one or two good times with an axe and it would pop open. Also, the exterrior of an airplane is lightweight aluminum. You could take a pocket knife, and shove it almost compleately through the exterrior, but I digress)

Anyway, from what I understand, is that the passengers were trying to get into the cockpit, and the pilots would bank the plane to throw them off balance. Once they got back to their feet, they would try again. The pilots became concerned that the passengers would gain entry to the cockpit, restrain them or kill them, and retake the plane. This would have been DETRIMENTAL to their mission, which was simple. KILL AMERICANS.

So, as opposed to failure, they decided to just drive that plane into the ground. I BELIEVE this information is found in the 9/11 comission report.

Why would they need to alter Flt 93?? Would it not have been enough of a blow to America that NYC deaths were enormous?? Absolutely. This was just a drop in the bucket. I believe that if 93 HADN'T crashed, we STILL would have demanded revenge.

[LashL]

The progression of this thread leads me to believe that the 'paper' in the opening post of this thread is ridiculous, and that its author is a "soil specialist" like I'm a neuro-surgeon. In other words, not at all.

It strikes me as beyond ludicrous to purport to opine on the contamination or non-contamination of the soil at the site of the crash of Flight 93 at Shanksville without ever having bothered to obtain and study the environmental studies that were conducted at the site and without having bothered to seek the opinions of qualified people to explain the results of those studies. And yet, the author of the 'paper' (which looks to me like nothing more than an incoherent conspiracy fantasist rant, lacking any basis in science, fact or evidence) claims that 9/11 'was an inside job' because his personal incredulity tells him so, without this self-described "soil specialist" ever having sought or reviewed the actual studies conducted or the results obtained.

This strikes me as woefully incompetent, and beyond disingenuous.

Rewey, why have you not sought or obtained copies of the environmental assessment reports that were conducted at the site, and why have you not done any analysis of the results of those assessment reports? Do you not agree that doing so should be the very FIRST step required if you wish to present yourself as some kind of expert who seeks to criticize the results of bona fide experts? Do you not agree that doing so should be the very FIRST step required in order for you to draw any accurate conclusions about the assessments, the testing methods, and the results? Do you not agree that obtaining, studying, and understanding the assessments carried out by legitimate experts, and the results at which they arrived, should be the very FIRST step you undertake before going off half-cocked and criticizing that which you have not even seen, let alone understood?

[Gravy]

Hello, Rewey.

I'm perplexed. Normally I would thank anyone who said they found my website (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1) valuable, but in your writings I don't see that you've learned anything at all from the simple evidence I set out – evidence that is a small fraction of the mountain that's available to the public.

Rewey, can you show that any of this evidence is wrong? If so, you will be the first to do so, and your evidence will be valued by news agencies and governments around the world.

You do understand that, don't you?

I note that several people have asked you to answer the four questions I asked of you. No one can compel you to do that, but in the interest of clarity I will refer you again to this post of mine (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4879951&postcount=108), with these questions:

1) What do the above accounts suggest to you about the presence of jet fuel at the site?

2) Which people who were at the site shortly after the crash did you interview?

3) Where can we find the final environmental report issued by United Airlines?

4) Can you present (what is to you) a sensible scenario that fits the existing evidence and does not involve flight 93 crashing in that field?

I believe that you've indirectly answered questions 1 and 2 by stating that in general you discount first-person accounts, so perhaps you can answer questions 3 and 4, clearly and directly.

Surely someone like yourself who makes claims about the work that was done at the Flight 93 site, knows what work was done there, right?

Question 4 is self-explanatory.

Thanks.


Edit: Also (and as usual!), what LashL said.

[Rewey]

The progression of this thread leads me to believe that the 'paper' in the opening post of this thread is ridiculous, and that its author is a "soil specialist" like I'm a neuro-surgeon. In other words, not at all.

I still don't get this! It was you guys on this forum that called me a 'soil specialist', not me. And I've explained this before. So clearly, yes - it is like you being a neuro-surgeon.

without this self-described "soil specialist"

And yet again...

Rewey, why have you not sought or obtained copies of the environmental assessment reports that were conducted at the site, and why have you not done any analysis of the results of those assessment reports?

The entire point of that report (well... where it started, before it digressed) was to point out that I didn't buy the view that the soil sround the site was 'loosely packed' or 'soft' because of the fact that there was a strip mine previously. What I believe I've pointed out is that the photos of the site tell a different story, as does the later finding of the Surface Mining Reclamation and Control Act 1977, which outlines the strict requirements for the decommissioning of a strip mine.

Would any of you guys like to concede at least that there were a number of legal requirements that had been met in decommissioning the strip mine, and that it had not simply been left in a 'loosely packed' state. It WOULD actually help your cause somewhat, by explaining why the plane fragmented into such tiny pieces...

Also, I doubt anyone here has downloaded the much-revised report for a second read? Just to demosntrate that when certain facts ARE pointed out, I'm more than happy to revise my thoughts...

[Justin39640]

So we're in the same boat then? (snip)

Rewey

please dont take me out of context or quote mine me

when i say LIHOP
i mean that once the doors closed on those planes (or even well before)
the govts job was over
the hijackers took over 4 planes and one of them crashed in that field

i also state that in my mind there is a 1% probability of this being the case (i guess the term "slightly" is an overstatement)

you imply that there was a MASSIVE COVER UP AFTER THE FACT WHICH WOULD IMPLICATE FIRST RESPONDERS IN THE CRIME

no sir we are definitely not in the same boat

[triforcharity]

If by same boat you mean he is in a dighy and you (Justin) are in a destroyer, than yes, you are.

I'll tell you what......some people's kids.

[Justin39640]

If by same boat you mean he is in a dighy and you (Justin) are in a destroyer, than yes, you are.

I'll tell you what......some people's kids.

JREF is definitely a 16" barrel of truth and it softens up TMers pretty nicely (by their reactions here and other places)
im just an AA gunner here lol (maybe even a cook lol)

[triforcharity]

Rewey,

Please direct your attention to page two, last paragraph on the page. It states that because of your job, you test many different soil samples for compaction, blah, blah, blah. Right?? Right.

So, if you test soil, and you test MANY samples EVERY month, than that would make you an expert right?? Right.

So, then you claim to NOT be an expert. If your not an expert, than what are you doing tesing soil that someone's HOUSE is going to sit on?? If you weren't an expert in your field, than why are you doing it?? Fun???

I am a firefighter. I retired from one of the LARGEST fire departments in the USA. I now work for a much smaller department after a move. Now, I have been a firefighter for going on 15 years now. I also teach at the local fire college, and sometimes even at the state fire college. I am considered an expert right?? Right.

So, tell me, your NOT an expert, but you take the safety of someone's home into your hands?? I would HOPE that you are an expert. If I did your job, many people's houses would not be very safe.

Now do you understand what expert means??? Jeez.

[triforcharity]

Justin, don't seel yourself short. I think on a ship the cook is the most important man on board. Think about it.....Hungry people=ANGRY people!!

[Magenta]

Please note carefully - I have never said that it's not the wreckage of Flight 93 there. I'm not saying it just disappeared, and I'm not one of the fruitloops who thinks the Government hid the plane and shot/gassed the passengers (which I've heard some people claim, one of which was even in a 'doco').

I'm just very curious as to whether there's another way the plane could have come down in the field. Is it AT LEAST POSSIBLE that parts of the plane had broken up before impact? Even if at a very low altitude before impact (not suggesting the 'shoot-down' idea here)?


Instead of beating round the bush, perhaps it would help if you said what you think is the "other way" UA93 crashed, and outline all the evidence you think is consistent with that scenario and inconsistent with an intact high speed impact?

But is there actually any evidence that those people were able to make it inside the cockpit? My understanding is that there is none, particularly as the last moments of the CVR were never made public. Maybe the truth is far less 'romantic'?

When you say "the last moments of the CVR were never made public", are you saying there is more on the CVR than was revealed either in court or via transcript? If so, how do you know that?

Also, who is saying the passengers were in the cockpit?

Look, let's face it. Everyone's seen dozens of different camera angles of the WTC's being hit. All the government would have to do to shut down all the nutjobs is release the footage confiscated from the camera on the hotel roof opposite the Pentagon, instead of just the 5 or so ambiguous frames from the side-on camera.


The Doubletree hotel? I'm pretty sure that footage has been available for awhile. In any case, from what I've observed of truthers on this forum any evidence that is inconsistent with their pet theory is generally hand-waved away or alleged to have been faked (which is what they do with all the other evidence from the Pentagon).

This is what breeds conspiracy theories - the suppression of information.


I think it's something else that breeds conspiracy theories, but that's for another thread. Actually, I'm amazed at how much information has been released under the USG's FOIA about 9/11. The problem for conspiracy theorists is that none of it supports their pet theories. From which they conclude that there must be a cover-up.

Also, I doubt anyone here has downloaded the much-revised report for a second read? Just to demosntrate that when certain facts ARE pointed out, I'm more than happy to revise my thoughts...


No, I haven't read it because what I'm seeing with this soil discussion is what I've seen with many other CTists who show up here, and that is an obsession with minutiae which might point to an anomaly which might show a flaw in the "official story" which might point to an inside job, while ignoring the mountains of evidence that contradict the conspiracy theories.

[Stellafane]

The progression of this thread leads me to believe that the 'paper' in the opening post of this thread is ridiculous, and that its author is a "soil specialist" like I'm a neuro-surgeon. In other words, not at all...

Remember way back near the beginning of this thread when new member Rewey claimed he was not really making any claims that anything malicious happened, he was just, you know, asking questions? It sure seems that in the intervening days his previously open, inquiring mind has clamped down on the hardest of hard-core Trutherism like a steel bear trap on raccoon feces.

Either that, or (as you suggest) member Rewey may have (to put this delicately) somewhat misrepresented himself and his true beliefs and intentions. I know, I know, hard to imagine a Truther actually doing something like that...

[Rewey]

Would any of you guys like to concede at least that there were a number of legal requirements that had been met in decommissioning the strip mine, and that it had not simply been left in a 'loosely packed' state. It WOULD actually help your cause somewhat, by explaining why the plane fragmented into such tiny pieces...

Anyone?

Rewey

[Crazytimes]

Anyone?

Rewey

Who cares about the soil. The plane broke up like it should when hitting the ground at that speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff7h7Ll8Dl4

[Rewey]

i personally lean slightly LIHOP cause that could be as simple as someone standing at a fax machine, grabbin a printout, crumpling it up, and shooting a 3 pointer into the waste paper basket

I love this scenario.

"I've just got word of an impending, large-scale, multiple-target terrorist attack inside the US which threatens the lives of thousands. I might just send someone a quick fax..."

Does ignoring or not acting on Intel really constitute LIHOP? I would have thought there would have to be more intent behind it to be considered LIHOP...

[Rewey]

Who cares about the soil.

You're right. Getting the story straight is so over-rated.

Look, like I've said before - getting these small details right actually HELPS you guys. Why?

I believe I've presented evidence (in the highlighting of the legislation surrounding the strip mining, and some further in demonstrating a few points about the constitution of the soil) which shows that there is basically no chance that the soil around the site was left 'loosely packed' after the decommissioning of the strip mine.

I feel that the more you guys continue to use that as part of your explanation, the more chance there is of the real tin-foil hat wearers to bring up debate around it. Remove that from your argument (which you all clearly feel is already overwhelmingly supported), and you remove one more element that people will jump on you for.

That's just my feeling anyway...

Rewey

[triforcharity]

When you have 3000 reports of terrorist intentions, how long would it take to confirm one of them??

Now, Rewey, would you like to respond to my post please. See first post of this page.


Now, I will concede that a decomissioned strip mine has alot of rules and such, which I am not framilliar with, and I will admit that very quickly. But, is it possible that someone (whomever owned/purchased the acerage) might have put something else on top of the approved compacted dirt and such?? Maybe i'm speculating.....

[leftysergeant]

Anyone?

Rewey

There is, as far as I can tell, no legal requirement to compact it as one would the fill over a garbage dump. It just had to be compact enough to support the weight of vehicles bringing in the additional fill. Were they planning to build on it, then it would have been compacted. BIG difference between reclaiming forest or pasture land and prepping a building site or airport.

The plane into the side of the terminal building is only useful in demonstrating how a plane can inflict structural damage to the target, even as the fuselage skin peels away.

The idiotic meme about the six concrete walls was introduced by a French criminal named Pierre-Henri Bunel, who has a total grudge against Americans for screwing up his military career.

Bunel not only claimed that there were concrete walls inside, he also called himself an expert on airfield fire fighting (then mis-identified the Oshkosh P-23 fire trucks) called himself an artillery officer and then claimed that a lobe in the fire ball was the shock wave from an HE blast. The boy is pretty much worthless to society, but Alan Miller has him listed on his "PQ911" site, which shows you how useful that jerk Miller is as a source.

Further backup of the six wall meme came from a retired Army major, Doug Rokke, who, if you watch him, clearly suffers from some sort of neuralogical disorder and probably PTSD. He also has a political aggenda and may be padding his curiculumn vitae a bit.

[Rewey]

The idiotic meme about the six concrete walls was introduced by a French criminal named Pierre-Henri Bunel, who has a total grudge against Americans for screwing up his military career.


Actually, you bring up another insteresting point here...

The book "Pentagon: A History" by Steve Vogel talks about the construction of the outer wall of the Pentagon. As it was done in such a rush, the bricklayers stacked bricks 2-3 high BEFORE placing mortar, meaning that there was no mortar between a lot of the bricks. Working for a home building company, I'm very aware of how structurally fatal this would be (as you could probably imagine), particularly given that the wall was 5-odd stories high.

What I find interesting is that the Pentagon Building Performance Report, found here:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

...fails to mention such an obvious fatal structural flaw in the outer walls. It also mentions that all remedial and renovation work that had been finished at the time of the crash did virtually nothing to improve the structural strength of the building.

Wouldn't you think that the official report into the structural failings of the building would at least mention that the wall was built with mortar only between every 2-3 bricks?

Rewey

All the Pentagon stuff has been removed in the first revision of my paper, by the way... I do edit things when I find evidence to the contrary...

[BigAl]

Actually, you bring up another insteresting point here...

The book "Pentagon: A History" by Steve Vogel talks about the construction of the outer wall of the Pentagon. As it was done in such a rush, the bricklayers stacked bricks 2-3 high BEFORE placing mortar, meaning that there was no mortar between a lot of the bricks.

Have you read Vogel's book in it's entirety? I suspect you haven't and have been handed a cherry-picked quote that leads you to an incorrect conclusion.

I haven't read Vogel but I have read other things about the construction of the Pentagon and construction might have been odd but not unsound.

You can search Vogel online via this URL and show us what page you are referring to. http://books.google.com/books?id=Dr0UIZJw58YC&pg=PP3&dq=Pentagon:+A+History%22+by+Steve+Vogel


Given that the entire jet and occupants were recovered from inside the Pentagon, what is your point, anyway?

[Rewey]

So, if you test soil, and you test MANY samples EVERY month, than that would make you an expert right??

So, tell me, your NOT an expert, but you take the safety of someone's home into your hands?? I would HOPE that you are an expert. If I did your job, many people's houses would not be very safe.

I wouldn't think so, no. I think that being an expert would require skills that preclude other people from doing the job with the SAME equipment that is used to conduct the tests.

Think about it. Do you consider the guy who collects the garbage to be an expert, even if he's done it for 20 years? I wouldn't think so, because I don't think that anyone elese with a garbage truck would struggle to do the same job without special training.

I might certainly be more familiar with soil, because of my work-related experience, but I don't consider myself an expert.

As for the safety of other people's houses - this is why we perform full soil tests, a site inspection report and compaction tests, which then determines the level of cleanfill, compaction, footing details and such are required.

Rewey

[Rewey]

Have you read Vogel's book in it's entirety?

I openly admit I haven't read the book. The point was told to me by an ardent 'official story' supporter. I have not been able to find a copy in libraries over here (only found out about it about a fortnight ago). I've asked the guy who brought it up if he knows of a pdf version, or if he can scan the relevant pages from it. As soon as I get them, I'm more than happy to share.

Given that the entire jet and occupants were recovered from inside the Pentagon, what is your point, anyway?

Exactly that - that the official report into the structural failings of the Pentagon building failed to mention that the outer walls were built in such a way that gave them practically no structural rigidity (according to this passage an OS supporter told me). Some people feel that the construction of the outer walls in such a way make it seem even more odd that the wings would simply fold up and be dragged inside the fuselage hole, rather than simply pass through the wall themselves.

I'm surprised that doesn't strike you as odd that the official report deosn't mention it...

Rewey

[BigAl]

I openly admit I haven't read the book. The point was told to me by an ardent 'official story' supporter. I have not been able to find a copy in libraries over here (only found out about it about a fortnight ago). I've asked the guy who brought it up if he knows of a pdf version, or if he can scan the relevant pages from it. As soon as I get them, I'm more than happy to share.



Exactly that - that the official report into the structural failings of the Pentagon building failed to mention that the outer walls were built in such a way that gave them practically no structural rigidity (according to this passage an OS supporter told me).

I'm surprised that doesn't strike you as odd...

Rewey

It doesn't strike me as anything until I get to read Vogel.

The assertion is either true or false and either way it's irrelevant to the discussion of what happened on 9/11.

[triforcharity]

Um, Rewey, why would the Pentagon spend 20,000 bucks on blast resistant windows if there was mortor missing?? Come on dude, seriously??

Secondly, it someone untrained in the use of such test equipment (such as myself) tried to run these tests, would they fail?? Most likely yes. Would the results be nullified and/or incorrect?? I would bet.

To equate what you do to picking up garbage is like comparing a 767 to an orange. Its idiotic at best. People's homes don't lie on wether their garbage is picked up in a timely and effecient manner.

So, could I do these tests and come to the correct conclusions that is needed?? No. because I do not have the expertiese that you do.

I would consider anyone who does the same job over even 10 yeaars an expert, wether it is picking up garbage or designing sprinkler systems.

Now, would you consider this a correct assumption?? Why or why not???

[beachnut]

Actually, you bring up another insteresting point here...

The book "Pentagon: A History" by Steve Vogel talks about the construction of the outer wall of the Pentagon. As it was done in such a rush, the bricklayers stacked bricks 2-3 high BEFORE placing mortar, meaning that there was no mortar between a lot of the bricks. Working for a home building company, I'm very aware of how structurally fatal this would be (as you could probably imagine), particularly given that the wall was 5-odd stories high.

What I find interesting is that the Pentagon Building Performance Report, found here:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

...fails to mention such an obvious fatal structural flaw in the outer walls. It also mentions that all remedial and renovation work that had been finished at the time of the crash did virtually nothing to improve the structural strength of the building.

Wouldn't you think that the official report into the structural failings of the building would at least mention that the wall was built with mortar only between every 2-3 bricks?

Rewey

All the Pentagon stuff has been removed in the first revision of my paper, by the way... I do edit things when I find evidence to the contrary...


The bricks do not hold up the building! What do bricks, which are only a facade not part of the structural integrity of the building, have to do with soil junk delusions made up due to ignorance?

You have no clue on how an aircraft crashes into the ground at 600 mph. Parts do get buried very deep along with people. It is so sad to see people make up failed ideas based on their own failed perceptions of how things should be.

93 crashed into the ground at 600 mph and what you see is a classic 600 mph impact at 40 degrees, almost inverted. You see the wing impact and you have parts ejected for hundreds of feet. There is nothing strange about 93 is you have the knowledge to understand. You don't have the knowledge so you made up failed ideas.

If you understand 19 terrorist killed 8 pilots and crashed 4 planes then you are on the right track, but you are not an aircraft accident investigator. There is direction to the crash, and no the velocity of the plane is going the direction of the plane, it does not bend the way you want it to because you have it falling in miro-seconds onto it's back? What! 93 crashed at 40 degrees but the exact degree of the velocity vector would be derived if needed by the Boeing Engineers who do crash scene investigation, we know the terrorist cause this so there is zero need for further investigation to nail down the exact parameters to solve why. 40 degrees is on the edge of being steep and shallow; but the plane will still bury itself deep. You can thousands of parts ejected but the FDR and/or CVR were buried 20 to 40 feet deep with other things; I have to look it up again to be more precise.

I would read more of your tripe but it gets bad, and then worse... plus I am having too much fun drinking beer and driving real slow, real fast, and in a place where the high is 75, the low is 65, and it never rains. Who lives in San Diego?

At least you post what you have and get it out there! That is outstanding.

[LashL]

I still don't get this! It was you guys on this forum that called me a 'soil specialist', not me. And I've explained this before. So clearly, yes - it is like you being a neuro-surgeon.

Silliness. Rewey, in your "paper", you put yourself forward as someone with particular knowledge and expertise in the properties of soil; you cite your knowledge of "previous studies" and your work experience; you discuss your experience with "soil testing and classification" and you play up the size and extent of the company for which you work; and you insinuate that you have expertise sufficient to "provide an analysis of the soil conditions present to assess whether it is at all realistic that a 90 ton Boeing could crash into the ground with enough force to bury itself completely."

You do all of that at the very outset of your paper, and it is quite apparent that you did so in order that those reading it would come to the conclusion that you have some particular expertise in the properties of soil and, therefore, would give your "analysis" more weight or consideration than they would otherwise do.

That is, indeed, YOU presenting yourself as a soil specialist. But you are not. Nor am I a neuro-surgeon.

The entire point of that report (well... where it started, before it digressed) was to point out that I didn't buy the view that the soil sround the site was 'loosely packed' or 'soft' because of the fact that there was a strip mine previously. What I believe I've pointed out is that the photos of the site tell a different story, as does the later finding of the Surface Mining Reclamation and Control Act 1977, which outlines the strict requirements for the decommissioning of a strip mine.

Your paper starts and ends with suggesting that Flight 93 could not have actually crashed in that location, so that seems to be its real "entire point". Your photo analysis is not only superficial but also grossly unprofessional and terribly flawed. You draw conclusions from a select few photographs that you have no business drawing such conclusions from, and you wholly ignore the existence of a wealth of actual study, analysis and assessment by true professionals in coming to weak and unsupported conclusions. Your paper would be a complete embarrassment to anyone who actually has any expertise in the properties of soil, or in soil contamination, or in environmental assessment. (The latter point is mentioned because of your posts in this thread in which you make various assertions about the environmental assessment conducted at the site with respect to soil contamination, without ever having made any effort to obtain the studies or do any analysis of them. As I said previously, that should be the FIRST step you take if you are going to purport to opine on such matters.)

Would any of you guys like to concede at least that there were a number of legal requirements that had been met in decommissioning the strip mine, and that it had not simply been left in a 'loosely packed' state.

There are, indeed, legal requirements for reclaiming land upon which mining has previously been carried out. However, I see nothing in the relevant legislation that leads me to conclude that the site at Shanksville could not have "loosely packed" soil. Can you please provide me with more detail as to how you come to this conclusion? Please bear in mind that you cannot cherry pick a certain section from a lengthy piece of legislation and just assume that it means what you think it means, or assume that it applies to a particular location, event, etc. So, please be specific and detailed as to the sections that you are relying upon, what you think those sections mean, and how you arrive at your conclusions.

Also, since you are opining on the reclamation of the Shanksville mining site, I guess I should ask you specifically whether you have ever bothered to ask for the reclamation plan for the site, or ever bothered to ask for documentation about the reclamation that was carried out, or ever bothered to find out what was actually done, or ever bothered to analyze the results of the reclamation plan after its implementation? I am going to go out a limb and predict that the answer to each of these questions will be a resounding, "No."

Also, I doubt anyone here has downloaded the much-revised report for a second read? Just to demosntrate that when certain facts ARE pointed out, I'm more than happy to revise my thoughts...

The version that I have read is a revised version. I do not believe I had the pleasure of reading the unrevised version, so I do not know what it is that you revised.

[Rewey]

Now, I will concede that a decomissioned strip mine has alot of rules and such, which I am not framilliar with, and I will admit that very quickly. But, is it possible that someone (whomever owned/purchased the acerage) might have put something else on top of the approved compacted dirt and such??

Sorry this is such a long post, but here's some of the relevant sections of the legislation:

§ 780.18 Reclamation plan: General requirements.
(a) Each application shall contain a plan for reclamation of the lands within the proposed permit area, showing how the applicant will comply with section 515 of the Act, subchapter K of this chapter, and the environmental protection performance standards of the regulatory program. The plan shall include, at a minimum, all information required under 30 CFR 780.18 through 780.37.
(b) Each plan shall contain the following information for the proposed permit area—
(1) A detailed timetable for the completion of each major step in the reclamation plan;
(2) A detailed estimate of the cost of reclamation of the proposed operations required to be covered by a performance bond under subchapter J of this chapter, with supporting calculations for the estimates;
(3) A plan for backfilling, soil stabilization, compacting, and grading, with contour maps or cross sections that show the anticipated final surface configuration of the proposed permit area, in accordance with 30 CFR 816.102 through 816.107;
(4) A plan for removal, storage, and redistribution of topsoil, subsoil, and other material to meet the requirements of § 816.22 of this chapter. A demonstration of the suitability of topsoil substitutes or supplements under § 816.22(b) of this chapter shall be based upon analysis of the thickness of soil horizons, total depth, texture, percent coarse fragments, pH, and areal extent of the different kinds of soils. The regulatory authority may require other chemical and physical analyses, fieldsite trials, or greenhouse tests if determined to be necessary or desirable to demonstrate the suitability of the topsoil substitutes or supplements.
(5) A plan for revegetation as required in 30 CFR 816.111 through 816.116, including, but not limited to, descriptions of the—
(i) Schedule of revegetation;
(ii) Species and amounts per acre of seeds and seedlings to be used;
(iii) Methods to be used in planting and seeding;
(iv) Mulching techniques;
(v) Irrigation, if appropriate, and pest and disease control measures, if any; and
(vi) Measures proposed to be used to determine the success of revegetation as required in 30 CFR 816.116.
(vii) A soil testing plan for evaluation of the results of topsoil handling and reclamation procedures related to revegetation.
(6) A description of the measures to be used to maximize the use and conservation of the coal resource as required in 30 CFR 816.59;
(7) A description of measures to be employed to ensure that all debris, acid-forming and toxic-forming materials, and materials constituting a fire hazard are disposed of in accordance with 30 CFR 816.89 and 816.102 and a description of the contingency plans which have been developed to preclude sustained combustion of such materials;
(8) A description, including appropriate cross sections and maps, of the measures to be used to seal or manage mine openings, and to plug, case, or manage exploration holes, other bore holes, wells, and other openings within the proposed permit area, in accordance with 30 CFR 816.13 through 816.15; and
(9) A description of steps to be taken to comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and other applicable air and water quality laws and regulations and health and safety standards.


There's plenty more, but that's the general crux of it...

Rewey

[Rewey]

Silliness. Rewey, in your "paper", you put yourself forward as someone with particular knowledge and expertise in the properties of soil; you cite your knowledge of "previous studies" and your work experience; you discuss your experience with "soil testing and classification" and you play up the size and extent of the company for which you work; and you insinuate that you have expertise sufficient to "provide an analysis of the soil conditions present to assess whether it is at all realistic that a 90 ton Boeing could crash into the ground with enough force to bury itself completely."

You do all of that at the very outset of your paper, and it is quite apparent that you did so in order that those reading it would come to the conclusion that you have some particular expertise in the properties of soil and, therefore, would give your "analysis" more weight or consideration than they would otherwise do.

That is, indeed, YOU presenting yourself as a soil specialist. But you are not. Nor am I a neuro-surgeon.

Please read post 173...

[LashL]

Please read post 173...

I did read it. It does not address the fact that you deliberately tried to present yourself as a soil specialist of some sort in your paper.

Now, please respond to the rest of my post, if you don't mind.

[triforcharity]

Here rewey, I will use websters def. of expert.

noun 1. a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority: a language expert.

2. Military. a. the highest rating in rifle marksmanship, above that of marksman and sharpshooter.
b. a person who has achieved such a rating.


–adjective

3. possessing special skill or knowledge; trained by practice; skillful or skilled (often fol. by in or at): an expert driver; to be expert at driving a car.

4. pertaining to, coming from, or characteristic of an expert: expert work; expert advice.


Notice the hilites sir. Would this not apply to you?? I believe they would.

[Rewey]

Here rewey, I will use websters def. of expert.

noun 1. a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority: a language expert.

–adjective

3. possessing special skill or knowledge; trained by practice; skillful or skilled (often fol. by in or at): an expert driver; to be expert at driving a car.

Notice the hilites sir. Would this not apply to you?? I believe they would.

So by that definition, you would say that the garbage collector is an expert? I'm sure there's a button or something that requires pushing to make the bins go up, but I'd have to look for it. Is that enough 'special knowledge' to make him an expert?

I can also tie my own shoes, but it's not something I've been able to do for my whole life. I had to learn it and practice when I was a kid. But now, heck, I can even tie my shoes in the dark. But I don't call myself a shoe tying expert!

Rewey

[LashL]

I did read it. It does not address the fact that you deliberately tried to present yourself as a soil specialist of some sort in your paper.

Now, please respond to the rest of my post, if you don't mind.

Ahem.

[Justin39640]

So by that definition, you would say that the garbage collector is an expert? I'm sure there's a button or something that requires pushing to make the bins go up, but I'd have to look for it. Is that enough 'special knowledge' to make him an expert?

I can also tie my own shoes, but it's not something I've been able to do for my whole life. I had to learn it and practice when I was a kid. But now, heck, I can even tie my shoes in the dark. But I don't call myself a shoe tying expert!

Rewey

youd probably get your hand chopped off in the thing thinking like that

blowing things importance off usually has disastrous results
over here we have another agency
its called OSHA (occupational health and safety administration)

they have thousands of reports of people with that exact mindset who are now missing limbs or no longer among us

[Justin39640]

I love this scenario.

"I've just got word of an impending, large-scale, multiple-target terrorist attack inside the US which threatens the lives of thousands. I might just send someone a quick fax..."

Does ignoring or not acting on Intel really constitute LIHOP? I would have thought there would have to be more intent behind it to be considered LIHOP...

um i think i was just trying to make a point :rolleyes:

you say this even though from the same exact post you thought yesterday "we were in the same boat" (LMAO id sink it myself if that was the case)

[dropzone]

I still don't get this! It was you guys on this forum that called me a 'soil specialist', not me.So what is your expertise? You only became interesting here because of the "soil specialist" thing. Without it you are just another guy posting things about which he knows nothing. Not that being a "soil specialist" would be more useful, as they are more interested in growing conditions, but still....The entire point of that report (well... where it started, before it digressed) was to point out that I didn't buy the view that the soil sround the site was 'loosely packed' or 'soft' because of the fact that there was a strip mine previously.I've lived around former strip mines and know that the pile of overburden doesn't compress to the density of the local dirt for many, MANY years. What I believe I've pointed out is that the photos of the site tell a different story, as does the later finding of the Surface Mining Reclamation and Control Act 1977, which outlines the strict requirements for the decommissioning of a strip mine.It's loosely packed overburden. Why would you believe that? Would any of you guys like to concede at least that there were a number of legal requirements that had been met in decommissioning the strip mine, and that it had not simply been left in a 'loosely packed' state. Why the h*ll would any regulation demand more? It WOULD actually help your cause somewhat, by explaining why the plane fragmented into such tiny pieces...You (checking myself) seem to be unfamiliar with the properties of (checking the records) pretty much any materials, and have never thrown something against a wall. It hits a solid (and at high speeds loose till and water react, at first, as solids) and it begins to fragment as well as compress. The loose till starts to react more as a fluid and the aircraft compresses more while burying itself deep in the soil.

The documentary about a Spitfire that bored into a field in France and was compressed to a length of five feet does not account for how its engine took up much of that five feet. Airplanes are built light, which calls for a minimum of materials.

[Rewey]

I've lived around former strip mines and know that the pile of overburden doesn't compress to the density of the local dirt for many, MANY years.


So how do you know that? Are you a soil specialist now? Do you conduct borehole testing or compaction tests? Or are you just assuming? In your words, are you "just another guy posting things about which he knows nothing"?

That's OK... I still find you interesting...

Why the h*ll would any regulation demand more?

Because of the environmental impacts which mines can have when not decommissioned properly. There's a list of nearly 60 federal laws and regulations which relates specifically to strip mining. You can find the list of them here...

http://teeic.anl.gov/er/coal/legal/index.cfm

Rewey

[Rewey]

Your photo analysis is not only superficial but also grossly unprofessional and terribly flawed. You draw conclusions from a select few photographs that you have no business drawing such conclusions from...

Can you demonstrate where the the photo analysis of the soil is wrong? Perhaps that there is a high presence of iron oxides? I thought the further information and map showing location of ultisols confirmed that. Perhaps it's the colour I got wrong, which formed the basis of some of the conclusions?

There are, indeed, legal requirements for reclaiming land upon which mining has previously been carried out. However, I see nothing in the relevant legislation that leads me to conclude that the site at Shanksville could not have "loosely packed" soil.

I posted some above - I think it was post 179...

Please bear in mind that you cannot cherry pick a certain section from a lengthy piece of legislation and just assume that it means what you think it means, or assume that it applies to a particular location, event, etc.

Look... this bit is frustrating. I'm not going to post the entire legislation, because it's far too long. But if I post a part of it, I'm cherry picking. If you don't like the parts I'm posting, feel free to read the whole thing for yourself.

With regards to assuming it applies to a particular location, I would think that its clause on 'Scope' is pretty helpful with that:


These legislative requirements for decommissioning a strip mine IN PENNSYLVANIA can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30, Volume 3, Part 398 Pennsylvania.

"Section 938.1 SCOPE - This part contains all rules applicable only within Pennsylvania that have been adopted under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977".


Rewey

[Rewey]

FOR THE RECORD...

Please note that on Friday morning (Western Australian time) I'm flying out to the Philippines.

I'm only bringing that up because if I suddenly disappear for a few weeks, there'll no doubt be a big bunch of you cheering and giving each other high-fives at the thought that you've scared off another 'tin-foil hat wearer'... That's not the case...

Rewey

[And before anyone mentions (like in another forum) that there is internet connection in the Philippines - I spend my all holidays each year helping to build an orphanage in the highlands north of Davao on the island of Mindanao - trust me, there's no internet there... if anyone want to see some awesome photos of it, one of the guys we go with has some on his blog here: http://kidswithnohouse.blogspot.com/]

[GlennB]

Exactly that - that the official report into the structural failings of the Pentagon building failed to mention that the outer walls were built in such a way that gave them practically no structural rigidity (according to this passage an OS supporter told me).
Rewey

Wrong. The Pentagon outer walls were a reinforced concrete frame, infilled with brick. The RC give it huge 'structural rigidity'. Then, during upgrading, the brick was itself being replaced with RC and blast-proof glass, as I recall.

Please verify your facts.

While we're here - the requirement to compact and otherwise stablisise the spoil from mining operations is entirely project-specific. If the spoil is building up on a hillside it must be compacted and kept stable. Tree planting is common. If it is going onto flat land the requirements would be less onerous as there would be no danger of slippage. Safety is the issue.

[Rewey]

Please verify your facts.

Just going by what I was told by an 'official story' supporter. If you'd read the posts, I am clearly still waiting for him to verify this...

While we're here - the requirement to compact and otherwise stablisise the spoil from mining operations is entirely project-specific.

It's talking about reclamation after the decommissioning of the mine, not a temporary fix during the mining process...

Rewey

[GlennB]

Just going by what I was told by an 'official story' supporter. If you'd read the posts, I am clearly still waiting for him to verify this...
Rewey

Why don't you verify it yourself before speculating about how the wall might have performed? The information is public and easily found.

[beachnut]

Here's a trained professional as well:

But no-one arriving at the site immediately after the crash spoke of large fires burning off this surface fuel, which would have burnt with large black plumes of smoke, being kerosene based.

Rewey

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flight93AirBusB52.jpg
Three different aircraft crashes with fires. So how many aircraft crashes have you investigated?

Where is your evidence, sources, facts?

[Rewey]

Where is your evidence, sources, facts?

OH MY GOD - do you people not read? I was using the witness quotes provided by Gravy...

What - are you saying they were wrong now?

[leftysergeant]

Okay, I will show you how compact the soil was at that location:

http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b351/spanlib/th_engineextract.jpg

You can see that, as the soil is excavated around the engine, it tends to slump readily into the trench dug beside it. This sortof soil WILL res-seal the hole behind even a very large ballistic object rammed into it.

[tsig]

FOR THE RECORD...

Please note that on Friday morning (Western Australian time) I'm flying out to the Philippines.

I'm only bringing that up because if I suddenly disappear for a few weeks, there'll no doubt be a big bunch of you cheering and giving each other high-fives at the thought that you've scared off another 'tin-foil hat wearer'... That's not the case...

Rewey

[And before anyone mentions (like in another forum) that there is internet connection in the Philippines - I spend my all holidays each year helping to build an orphanage in the highlands north of Davao on the island of Mindanao - trust me, there's no internet there... if anyone want to see some awesome photos of it, one of the guys we go with has some on his blog here: http://kidswithnohouse.blogspot.com/]

Well that's one of the more imaginative excuses I have seen here.

Are you a "builder" in the same way you're a "soil specialist"?

[Rewey]

Okay, I will show you how compact the soil was at that location:

http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b351/spanlib/th_engineextract.jpg

You can see that, as the soil is excavated around the engine, it tends to slump readily into the trench dug beside it. This sortof soil WILL res-seal the hole behind even a very large ballistic object rammed into it.

I don't know. I think if you look at the edge around the top of the hole, you can see sharp, defined edges, not the sort of really soft edges you get when you dig into soft sand. And people standing on obviously firm ground.

Happy to agree to disagree on this photo, though. You say tomato, I say tomato.

Would you agree that the colour of the soil (reddy-orange) is due to the iron oxides, and this is what makes some people think it's dirt, some people think it's rusted plane parts (and therefore staged)?

Feel good to agree on something before I go!

Rewey

[Rewey]

Are you a "builder" in the same way you're a "soil specialist"?

If you read the report, and all of my posts, you'd know I keep telling people I'm not a 'soil specialist', and yes, I do work for a building company.

Well that's one of the more imaginative excuses I have seen here.

Nah - all genuine there. You should try something like that at least once in your life. It's the most rewarding thing you'll ever do... Look at some of the kids in those photos - they've got nothing on Earth.

Fly out in 6 hours. Can't wait...

Rewey

[Rewey]

The information is public and easily found.

Really? Do you have it? Because I couldn't find a copy of it anywhere.

THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE GUY TO PROVIDE IT. Because it seemed to go against what the NIST report on the Pentagon performance stated. I just brought it up because of something leftysergeant mentioned...

Rewey

[BigAl]

Really? Do you have it? Because I couldn't find a copy of it anywhere.

THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE GUY TO PROVIDE IT. Because it seemed to go against what the NIST report on the Pentagon performance stated. I just brought it up because of something leftysergeant mentioned...

Rewey

What is your point? The nature of the wall is irrelevant to the fact that Flight 93, a 757, crashed into the Pentagon.

You admit you haven't read the entire Vogel book from which you cherry-picked a "fact". Maybe reading it would clarify your understanding.

The other good book on the Pentagon is Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 - 150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses by Patrick Creed.

[Magenta]

Please note that on Friday morning (Western Australian time) I'm flying out to the Philippines.


OK, enjoy your break.

Would you agree that the colour of the soil (reddy-orange) is due to the iron oxides, and this is what makes some people think it's dirt, some people think it's rusted plane parts (and therefore staged)?


Rust? Aren't jet engines made out of titanium, aluminium and fancy alloys?

[Justin39640]

Nah - all genuine there. You should try something like that at least once in your life. It's the most rewarding thing you'll ever do... Look at some of the kids in those photos - they've got nothing on Earth.

Fly out in 6 hours. Can't wait...

Rewey

i gotta respect him for that

[Gravy]

OH MY GOD - do you people not read? I was using the witness quotes provided by Gravy...

What - are you saying they were wrong now?Oh? The same people you refuse to interview because you don't believe that interviews of witnesses and first responders and professional investigators would be worthwhile? The same people who make you Flight 93 truthers quake in your shoes whenever their names are mentioned?

What - are you saying that they were right now? Here's a suggestion. I believe I've made it already. Why don't you ask them, Rewey?

As if.

So, Rewey, you have this strong belief. What are you going to DO with it? Where are you going to present your evidence?

Nowhere but internet forums. Because you care that much. Because you have that much confidence in your evidence.

Go ahead: prove me wrong.

As if. Your posts reek of intellectual cowardice, equivocation, and backpedaling. Your inability to answer simple, essential questions about your own claims is once again noted. How sad.

Goodbye, "Rewey," and good luck with your delusions. You'll need it.

[triforcharity]

So by that definition, you would say that the garbage collector is an expert? I'm sure there's a button or something that requires pushing to make the bins go up, but I'd have to look for it. Is that enough 'special knowledge' to make him an expert?

I can also tie my own shoes, but it's not something I've been able to do for my whole life. I had to learn it and practice when I was a kid. But now, heck, I can even tie my shoes in the dark. But I don't call myself a shoe tying expert!

Rewey


Just about anyone can tie thier shoes. This is not a SPECIAL SKILL!!

Just about anyone can make toast. This is NOT a special skill.

Testing soil, fighting fire, etc.etc. etc. are in fact special skills.

Someone who has extensive training in said fields are usually refered to as experts.

Case closed. Look foreward to when you get back.

[LashL]

Silliness. Rewey, in your "paper", you put yourself forward as someone with particular knowledge and expertise in the properties of soil; you cite your knowledge of "previous studies" and your work experience; you discuss your experience with "soil testing and classification" and you play up the size and extent of the company for which you work; and you insinuate that you have expertise sufficient to "provide an analysis of the soil conditions present to assess whether it is at all realistic that a 90 ton Boeing could crash into the ground with enough force to bury itself completely."

You do all of that at the very outset of your paper, and it is quite apparent that you did so in order that those reading it would come to the conclusion that you have some particular expertise in the properties of soil and, therefore, would give your "analysis" more weight or consideration than they would otherwise do.

That is, indeed, YOU presenting yourself as a soil specialist. But you are not. Nor am I a neuro-surgeon.



Your paper starts and ends with suggesting that Flight 93 could not have actually crashed in that location, so that seems to be its real "entire point". Your photo analysis is not only superficial but also grossly unprofessional and terribly flawed. You draw conclusions from a select few photographs that you have no business drawing such conclusions from, and you wholly ignore the existence of a wealth of actual study, analysis and assessment by true professionals in coming to weak and unsupported conclusions. Your paper would be a complete embarrassment to anyone who actually has any expertise in the properties of soil, or in soil contamination, or in environmental assessment. (The latter point is mentioned because of your posts in this thread in which you make various assertions about the environmental assessment conducted at the site with respect to soil contamination, without ever having made any effort to obtain the studies or do any analysis of them. As I said previously, that should be the FIRST step you take if you are going to purport to opine on such matters.)



There are, indeed, legal requirements for reclaiming land upon which mining has previously been carried out. However, I see nothing in the relevant legislation that leads me to conclude that the site at Shanksville could not have "loosely packed" soil. Can you please provide me with more detail as to how you come to this conclusion? Please bear in mind that you cannot cherry pick a certain section from a lengthy piece of legislation and just assume that it means what you think it means, or assume that it applies to a particular location, event, etc. So, please be specific and detailed as to the sections that you are relying upon, what you think those sections mean, and how you arrive at your conclusions.

Also, since you are opining on the reclamation of the Shanksville mining site, I guess I should ask you specifically whether you have ever bothered to ask for the reclamation plan for the site, or ever bothered to ask for documentation about the reclamation that was carried out, or ever bothered to find out what was actually done, or ever bothered to analyze the results of the reclamation plan after its implementation? I am going to go out a limb and predict that the answer to each of these questions will be a resounding, "No."



The version that I have read is a revised version. I do not believe I had the pleasure of reading the unrevised version, so I do not know what it is that you revised.


Once again, "Ahem."

Either address my post in its entirety, "Rewey", or admit that you will not. It is not sufficient for you to pick and choose portions to purport to respond to in the ridiculous fashion that you have done. If you want a serious discussion (despite the fact that nothing you have posted so far merits one), then you will address the issues appropriately. If you refuse to do so, then you are just wasting my time.

[Arus808]

PLEASE keep the pentagon and WTC stuff out of this thread (rewey start another one if you want to address you concerns about them, otherwise, POST into a thread that is alrady about them)

And rewey, you haven't answered any of Lashl's points. PLease do so

[Foolmewunz]

Look it up... and try somewhere other than Wikipedia... who do you think was loading armaments on to the Lusitania, headed for England? It was an extension of the lend-lease scheme.




In Bizarro Troof World was Lend Lease (an FDR program) a part of WWI? Someone Stundie this before he dies under the crush of his own ignorance.

ETA: Sorry, gang. How was I to know this had gone on for another four pages? You expect me to know everything?

[Magenta]

Once again, "Ahem."

Either address my post in its entirety, "Rewey", or admit that you will not. It is not sufficient for you to pick and choose portions to purport to respond to in the ridiculous fashion that you have done. If you want a serious discussion (despite the fact that nothing you have posted so far merits one), then you will address the issues appropriately. If you refuse to do so, then you are just wasting my time.

And rewey, you haven't answered any of Lashl's points. PLease do so


Don't hold your breath:


FOR THE RECORD...

Please note that on Friday morning (Western Australian time) I'm flying out to the Philippines.

I'm only bringing that up because if I suddenly disappear for a few weeks, there'll no doubt be a big bunch of you cheering and giving each other high-fives at the thought that you've scared off another 'tin-foil hat wearer'... That's not the case...


Also, he's been studiously ignoring Gravy's post from earlier in the week:

Hello, Rewey.

I'm perplexed. Normally I would thank anyone who said they found my website (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1) valuable, but in your writings I don't see that you've learned anything at all from the simple evidence I set out – evidence that is a small fraction of the mountain that's available to the public.

Rewey, can you show that any of this evidence is wrong? If so, you will be the first to do so, and your evidence will be valued by news agencies and governments around the world.

You do understand that, don't you?

I note that several people have asked you to answer the four questions I asked of you. No one can compel you to do that, but in the interest of clarity I will refer you again to this post of mine (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4879951&postcount=108), with these questions:

1) What do the above accounts suggest to you about the presence of jet fuel at the site?

2) Which people who were at the site shortly after the crash did you interview?

3) Where can we find the final environmental report issued by United Airlines?

4) Can you present (what is to you) a sensible scenario that fits the existing evidence and does not involve flight 93 crashing in that field?

I believe that you've indirectly answered questions 1 and 2 by stating that in general you discount first-person accounts, so perhaps you can answer questions 3 and 4, clearly and directly.

Surely someone like yourself who makes claims about the work that was done at the Flight 93 site, knows what work was done there, right?

Question 4 is self-explanatory.

Thanks.


Edit: Also (and as usual!), what LashL said.

[tsig]

i gotta respect him for that

If you believe a word of it.

[tsig]

If you read the report, and all of my posts, you'd know I keep telling people I'm not a 'soil specialist', and yes, I do work for a building company.



Nah - all genuine there. You should try something like that at least once in your life. It's the most rewarding thing you'll ever do... Look at some of the kids in those photos - they've got nothing on Earth.

Fly out in 6 hours. Can't wait...

Rewey

Why not take the money for your flight ticket and hire local men to do the construction?

You should tell the truth at least once in your life. It's the most rewarding thing you'll ever do...

[Justin39640]

If you believe a word of it.

just cause hes got nutty ideas (which i dont respect)
doesnt mean that no truthers do anything of actual value

seeing we cant prove it one way or another i give the benefit of the doubt

his head needs some checking
but the heart is there (or so it seems)

[Magenta]

I read Rewey's paper over the weekend. While soil analysis via photograph and without reference to site-specific data is a novel way to approach a crash site investigation, what struck me is how the analysis is tainted by a conspiratorial mindset. For example:

"One question is raised. If there are countless recreations and computer simulations of the two planes hitting the WTC towers, and of the alleged plane hitting the Pentagon, why is there not one official source which has produced a recreation or computer simulation of the plane hitting the ground in Shanksville, as per the official story? The answer, quite simply, is because as soon as people took one look at it, they would realise how absurd the official story really is." [emphasis in original] p26-27


So, on the one hand, if information is available it is deemed to be fabricated, but on the other hand if it is believed (erroneously, because of sloppy research) to have been withheld, then that is also evidence of nefarious activity.

The flight 93 recorder data and animation are of course available directly from the NTSB via FOI request, or from various sites that have uploaded it. I will be interested to see if Rewey hand-waves it aside.

[CORed]

You know what? You would have been one of those people in 1915 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice over a thousand people JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the sinking of the Lusitania was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1941 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice thousands of servicemen JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Pearl Harbour was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in the 60s saying "There's NO WAY the government would kill hundreds of civilians and engage in domestic terrorism JUST so they could overthrow a neighbouring government", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that Operation Northwood was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1964 saying "There's NO WAY the government would make up an imaginary torpedo attack JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1993 saying "There's NO WAY the government would know about a truckbomb heading for the WTC and just let it happen", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the WTC bombing was exactly that.

You know what? You can hassle me all you like about 'disgracing the memory of the victims', and whatever other emotive language you want to use, but at the end of the day, the track record speaks for itself. IN EVERY OTHER CASE it was people like YOU who ended up disgracing the memory of the victims with your ignorance...

You all carry on like 8 years is an eternity... Believe it or not, it's still within the statute of limitations for crimes such as murder, so the courts don't agree with you that it's too long for the truth to come out. For all of the examples above, the truth took decades to come out. The same will happen here... You blindly stand up for the government - what has it ever done for you? Seriously?

One out of six ain't bad for a truther.

[CORed]

The truth about the warnings before the sinking of the Lusitania, whilst the US claimed they had no knowledge about German uboats. No-one could believe that the US would send a passenger ship deliberately into uboat infested waters, but it's now known that they did. The truth about the knowledge of the impending Pearl Harbour attack, and the response of the US government to just let it happen, which we now know that they did. The truth about the USS Liberty attack by Israel. The truth about US operations in Loas and Cambodia during Vietnam, which is now admitted to. The truth about the US involvement with Afghanistan against the Soviets, which is now widely known. The truth about the US involvement with weapons during the Iran contra scandal, which is now admited to.

So let me get this straight: You think the US government had something to do with the RMS Lusitania, a privately-owned ocean liner of British registry, making it's regularly scheduled run?

[Rhotel1]

Further backup of the six wall meme came from a retired Army major, Doug Rokke, who, if you watch him, clearly suffers from some sort of neuralogical disorder and probably PTSD. He also has a political aggenda and may be padding his curiculumn vitae a bit

Lefty Sergeant,

I would like to shake your hand for recognizing that Douglas Lind Rokke is basically a fraud. Rokke claims to have been stationed in the Pentagon and to have friends who were near the point of attack. Rokke never was stationed in the Pentagon. Rokke served on active duty as an Army Reserve officer twice; in Desert Shield/Storm 1990-91 and at Fort McClellan, Alabama in 1994-95. The rest of Rokke's military career was spent in the corn fields of Illinois. Rokke's doctoral degree is in Vocational Education (in the US, that is high school for kids who do not intend to go to college); Rokke's masters degree is also in Vocational Education. Rokke never treated any wounded soldiers; he did use Betadine to clean cuts and BandAids and SteriStrips to treat them when he responded to a tank fire in April 1991. The War had been over for two months. Rokke spent the actual war safe and sound in Riyadh. Rokke was a First Lieutenant in the Gulf War. He was promoted to Major in about 2001. He was retired from the Army Reserve as a Major in 2003.

I need to go to bed - it is very late and I need to go to work in a few hours.

DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com

[Travis]

Funny how this line of discussion just died. Did we ever determine if Skanksville had proper remediation compaction or not?

[beachnut]

Funny how this line of discussion just died. Did we ever determine if Skanksville had proper remediation compaction or not?
The soil expert was talking about bullets being stopped by sand bags but never offered up why a plane with nearly 2000 pounds of TNT kinetic energy, traveling at 600 mph can't bury parts 30 to 40 feet deep. There was no energy comparison. The fact is aircraft going 600 mph can bury parts 20 to 50 feet deep in the ground. He presented a failed opinion without backup evidence. And the ground did stop flight 93 just as if it was a bullet in a sand bag; but different.

[Travis]

I just noticed I wrote Skanksville. Oops. Didn't mean to cast any aspersions.

[twinstead]

What a coincidence; my first wife was from Skansville.

[twinstead]

Ummm, SkanKsville, I mean. The joke would have been much better had I typed it right. Crap

[Magenta]

Did we ever determine if Skanksville had proper remediation compaction or not?


You would need to look at site-specific documentation to get a better idea about that (rather than relying on online photographs and citing legislation, as Rewey did). An (unidentified) source that Rewey quoted in his paper points to this:

A mine closure and reclamation plan for any mine is site-specific. It details how the mining company will close the mine site and return the surrounding land, as closely as possible, to its pre-mining state


Also, extraordinary claims (i.e. that the crash site was faked) require extraordinary evidence...