Claims about Flight 93 debris

[Buckaroo]

I made the mistake of listening to the Lionel Show on our local "progressive talk" station here in DC last night, and he made number of wild claims about flight 93. Some I've heard before, and are easily countered, but a few are new to me. In particular, he made the claim that debris from flight 93 was found 8 miles away, showing that the plane must have broken up in mid-air, an idea that he then ridiculed.

I can't quite work out his angle, though. On the one hand it seems like he's saying that the plane was shot down, but then he asks leading questions like "where's the plane?" referring to the apparent lack of debris at the crash, making it seem as though 93 never actually crashed.

My question, then, is this: is the claim true? If so, how do we think it occurred? If not, where did the claim originate?

Even aside from his troother tendancies, he's one obnoxious SOB, ain't 'e?

[jhunter1163]

I've heard this claim before too. IIRC, paper debris was found as far away as 1.5 miles. The largest significant piece of metallic debris was an engine fan which was found about 300 yards away (downhill) from the crash site.

You could contrast this with what happened at Lockerbie, where the plane actually did blow up in mid-air. The debris field was measured in the thousands of square kilometers.

ETA: If he's claiming there was a plane switch, he may be referring to the (brief) confusion between UA93 and Delta 1989. I can't really figure out what he's claiming, either.

[Gravy]

There was light paper and cloth debris that made it at least 6 miles away, carried by the wind. No plane parts though. The flight data recorder indicated that all major systems were functioning normally when the plane hit the ground, and witnesses say it was intact as it headed down.

[Buckaroo]

That's all about what I figured.

I should clarify from my OP: He was not ridiculing the notion that the debris ended up 8 miles away, a "fact" he proclaimed as if it was gospel. He was ridiculing the idea that the plane broke up in midair by itself. He thereby implied that it had help from a missile or such.

[chippy]

They found no debris behind the crash site. All that was found was in front of where the plane was heading, which is consistent with its 40 degree slope when it rammed into the ground.

If it were hit by a missile, the debris would have been more widespread.

[gumboot]

As others have said, everything is consistant with an intact aircraft crash. Aircraft that break up in mid air routinely scatter debris over enormous areas. To the untrained eye "8 miles" seems like a long way, but really it's not. That's less than a minute of travel time for something travelling at 500 MPH. It's also worth noting that "debris" includes anything. Aircraft might be made of metal, but their contents includes things like magazines, paper, and clothing - all very light and easily carried by the wind after being thrown into the air by an explosion.

-Gumboot

[uk_dave]

If the shanksville crash site was faked it would have been faked to fool the simple folks of the 'truth' movement, therefore there would have been:

Easily indentifiable large pieces of wreckage concentrated in a small area with a clearly defined 'cut out' in the ground perfectly matching the profile of the plane.

Since there wasn't, it follows that the scene was not faked.

A new rule of CT emerges:

Anything which looks exactly how the 'truther' imagines it should look is most likely faked, and anything which is contrary to how the 'truther' expects it to look is real.

[einsteen]

The last theory I've heard was someone saying it buried itself alive

[apathoid]

The last theory I've heard was someone saying it buried itself alive

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/115/3864/640/Flight%2093%20D.jpg

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but in this case - words fail me...

[einsteen]

The only theory that I personally have is that I have no theory about that plane.

[Gravy]

The last theory I've heard was someone saying it buried itself aliveIf you're interested, why haven't you looked the evidence, rather than mentioning foolish opinions that you heard? And where do you think the wreckage, human remains, and personal effects came from?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045bb784d734e9.jpg


The only theory that I personally have is that I have no theory about that plane.Why do you choose not to believe all the evidence?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=7
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-4#flight-93-didnt-crash (search for the phrase "the physical evidence")
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/93index9.asp

[A W Smith]

anyone here as a kid ever take apart a birds nest?

[boloboffin]

This goes here.

Spooked911 (who is Ace Baker, right?), he of the first two bunny cage experiments, has come up with a doozy over at DU. The engine buried under the ground he faults for two reasons.

One: it's only a foot or so under the earth. This doesn't account for any distance traveled under the soil during the impact.

Two: get this - the engine is sitting at the wrong angle to be from 93.

the engine should be tilted 45 degrees to the north but its tilted to the south

Yes, I have already explained that large pieces of engine that tear off of a plane that impacts the ground at high speeds are apt to land at almost any angle whatsoever. Perhaps I'm using too many prepositional phrases - it's a weakness of mine.

[Gravy]

This goes here.

Spooked911 (who is Ace Baker, right?), he of the first two bunny cage experiments, has come up with a doozy over at DU. The engine buried under the ground he faults for two reasons.

One: it's only a foot or so under the earth. This doesn't account for any distance traveled under the soil during the impact.

Two: get this - the engine is sitting at the wrong angle to be from 93.



Yes, I have already explained that large pieces of engine that tear off of a plane that impacts the ground at high speeds are apt to land at almost any angle whatsoever. Perhaps I'm using too many prepositional phrases - it's a weakness of mine.Spooked isn't Ace Baker, but he might as well be. Why he would assume that the engine part that's being dragged out of the crater in the photo was found at that depth and position is beyond my ken. He is a special, special kind of idiot.

[Pardalis]

If you're interested, why haven't you looked the evidence, rather than mentioning foolish opinions that you heard? And where do you think the wreckage, human remains, and personal effects came from?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045bb784d734e9.jpg


Why do you choose not to believe all the evidence?

Just once I would like to see (or hear) a CTist say: "I stand corrected."

Just once.

[einsteen]

Gravy, it was "one of you guys" who said that.

Did I see a passport ? That is the ultimate proof, was it Osama himself ?

[GlennB]

Gravy, it was "one of you guys" who said that.



That it "buried itself alive" ??

What on earth is that phrase even supposed to mean?

[Pardalis]

Gravy, it was "one of you guys" who said that.

Did I see a passport ? That is the ultimate proof, was it Osama himself ?

Einsteen, could you answer Gravy's post? What about the wreckage and the human remains found at the crash site?

It's common courtesy to answer when someone asks you a question.

[TC329]

There was light paper and cloth debris that made it at least 6 miles away, carried by the wind. No plane parts though. The flight data recorder indicated that all major systems were functioning normally when the plane hit the ground, and witnesses say it was intact as it headed down.


Would you agree that the appearance of this crater indicates a 39degree angle at impact as stated by the fdr data or do you think it would be more consistent with a 90degree angle at impact?

http://img327.imageshack.us/img327/6167/crashpennsylvania9ba.jpg

[Pardalis]

How did you come to this conlcusion?

[CurtC]

Would you agree that the appearance of this crater indicates a 39degree angle at impact as stated by the fdr data or do you think it would be more consistent with a 90degree angle at impact?How on earth could you even take a guess at the angle of impact from that photo?

That photo tells me that the plane hit nose-first, not wingtip-first or belly-first, but conveys no information about the angle it hit at.

[TC329]

http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=7
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-4#flight-93-didnt-crash (search for the phrase "the physical evidence")
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/93index9.asp


The property owner, Lambert, said the 2nd engine wasn't recovered from his property. He said it was a piece of the fuselage and the report that it was an engine was incorrect.

[TC329]

How on earth could you even take a guess at the angle of impact from that photo?

That photo tells me that the plane hit nose-first, not wingtip-first or belly-first, but conveys no information about the angle it hit at.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/UA93FDR3.jpg

[Gravy]

I'll be glad to address your question, TC, when you've addressed mine, whichI have repeatedly asked. Why are you avoiding answering?

1) Several weeks ago you claimed that no human remains were found at the flight 93 crash site. I gave you the contact information for the three principals who worked on remains collection and identification. I asked you to contact these people with your questions.

Have you done so? If not, why? If so, what did they say?

2) You have repeatedly claimed that the crater imprint showed a wingspan of as little as 40 feet. I have repeatedly shown your claim to be false.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045b7bb2b6a739.jpg

Do you agree that the wing imprint is consistent with a plane the size of a Boeing 757?

[Pardalis]

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/UA93FDR3.jpg
??

[Gravy]

TC, since you live in the Bizarro Universe, by "No wreckage," you mean "Almost all the wreckage," correct?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045c26b9186378.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790459130ee2e509.jpg

[Pardalis]

Just once... Just once...

[beachnut]

Would you agree that the appearance of this crater indicates a 39degree angle at impact as stated by the fdr data or do you think it would be more consistent with a 90degree angle at impact?

http://img327.imageshack.us/img327/6167/crashpennsylvania9ba.jpg

That wingspan impact is exactly a 757! Wow. Only an idiot can not figure that out! Do you know anyone who can not measure this? Because it is exactly the wingspan of a 757.

Plus it is exactly what a high speed ground impact looks like! You must remember the plane was going 600 mph and that is what an impact of jet into the ground looks like at 600 mph. The bouncing off the ground only works when the elastic properties of the aircraft are not exceeded. Too bad most CTers are incapable of looking up what a high speed aircraft impact looks like.

CTer must be too lazy to find a high speed impact crash. Too lazy or too dumb.

So you posted proof of a wingspan impact of a 757, and a high speed impact of a 757 into the ground. Good job you are self debunking like all CTers are.

[beachnut]

Would you agree that the appearance of this crater indicates a 39degree angle at impact as stated by the fdr data or do you think it would be more consistent with a 90degree angle at impact?



Why are you not able to measure the wingspan impact with the photos you have?

Are you unable to be honest? If you can not measure it properly you must be telling lies about 9/11.

The aircraft debris was ejected all over; just like a high speed ground impact of an aircraft. You should ask a real accident investigator and stop using rookies to make up stuff.

[beachnut]

Would you agree that the appearance of this crater indicates a 39degree angle at impact as stated by the fdr data or do you think it would be more consistent with a 90degree angle at impact?

http://img327.imageshack.us/img327/6167/crashpennsylvania9ba.jpg

This is a good photo. It shows a 757 wingspan impact at 40 degrees nose down with a right turn impact at 170 to 190 degrees (like going south and turning right. See the left wing dug in and the plane was turning right. You can see this in this photo. So at 40 degree impact the plane dug in deep and some debris was ejected as the plane smashed into the ground at 700 to 800 feet per second.

Some idiot at LCF said there was no fuel found in the soil. What part of fire does he not understand. Fuel burns and it is no longer fuel.

I hope you did not get this junk from LCF; those guys at LCF are down right stupid. Do you agree? Thanks for this photo it pretty much proves flight 93 was a 757 that hit at around 40 degrees nose down and heading south. You can see the twist in the ground and the ejected material was south of the impact.

Proof provided by? Thanks again. You should post over at LCF and they can see how the wingspan matches a 757. Be careful they censor and ban people as if they were running a NAZI propaganda machine.

The plane was turning to the south and impacted; see the left wing digs out the ground and the right wing digs into the ground and piles up soil; and the left wing sweeps along piling up dirt in the turn direction also. Who said the aircraft debris was not in the correct direction. It is exactly where the plane was headed south and 40 degrees into the ground.

[beachnut]

I think the left engine was ejected and the right engine dug into the ground from looking at the photo. Which one was it? The search is on.

It looks like there is a ground impact for each engine which one flew down the hill?

After being on a few AF accidents I think the left engine was flung down south from the impact. This is because the plane was turning south when it hit. That puts a moment on the engine at impact so it would have energy to break off and leave in the direction the plane was going. It looks like the right wing hit before the left wing and that engine was buried with the impact as the plane was turning right. I have to check all the parameters again but that is why both engines were not buried. The engine impacts were slightly different due to the movement of the aircraft at the time of impact. Even in slow speed hi angle (greater than 15 degrees) accidents the plane buries a lot of stuff into the ground and also ejects a lot of stuff.

[Buckaroo]

The property owner, Lambert, said the 2nd engine wasn't recovered from his property. He said it was a piece of the fuselage and the report that it was an engine was incorrect.

Really? And how closely do you think he was alowed to inspect crime scene debris as it was being tagged and carted away? My guess is that he wasn't allowed anywhere near it.

Even if he was, are you honestly saying that someone without aviation expertise could tell the difference between the twisted metal of an aircraft engine that had struck the ground at 600 MPH and the twisted metal of an aircraft fuselage that had struck the ground at 600 MPH?

Why are you people so married to this idiocy?

[Pardalis]

Bump for Einsteen.

[Pardalis]

Bump for Einsteen.

[Pardalis]

Bump for Einsteen.

[LashL]

Bump for Einsteen

Okay, admittedly, I was really just using this as an opportunity to check the clock (i.e. the synchronicity of clocks among time zones and websites and such) but it seemed like as good a place as any to do so.

Carry on :D

[gumboot]

Bump for Einsteen

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

-Gumboot

[uk_dave]

Einsteen for bumps

(hey, variety and all that)

[mailman]

Why are we bumping this for Einsteen? :D

Mailman

[Gravy]

Bump for ohmyTVC15, oh, oh, TVC15.