Flight 93 the physics of the impact - Page 3

MRC_Hans · 1st August 2012, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Could have been shot down.

How would that change anything on the crash site?

Quote:

I have no idea. Now take a shot at my questions.

Was done.

Hans

RedIbis · 2nd August 2012, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

How would that change anything on the crash site?

It would explain the lack of debris.

LSSBB · 2nd August 2012, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

It would explain the lack of debris.

How exactly would it do that?

RedIbis · 2nd August 2012, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

How exactly would it do that?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just being intentionally obtuse.

000063 · 2nd August 2012, 07:42 AM

And I'm not, and I'm going to assume you're dodging the question.

MRC_Hans · 2nd August 2012, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

It would explain the lack of debris.

I don't see how. Please be more specific: I am aware that some of the debris would show signs of explosions or bullets, but otherwise, in your opinion what would be the the difference between the debris field of a plane that was shot down and one that was flown into the ground?

Hans

Captain_Swoop · 2nd August 2012, 07:57 AM

If it was shot down how would the crash site be different?

Where would the debris be if not at the crash site?

LSSBB · 2nd August 2012, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just being intentionally obtuse.

You call that giving me the benefit of the doubt??

One more time, without apparent condescension, since I fail to see your point, and with rewording for possible improvements to comprehension:

How does being "shot down" lead to less debris at the crash site? Where did the rest of the debris go?

RedIbis · 2nd August 2012, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

[...]since I fail to see your point,[...]

That's not my responsibility.

sheeplesnshills · 2nd August 2012, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

It would explain the lack of debris.

Why? surely a mid air explosion is likely to create a bigger spread of wreckage not a smaller one.

The was no reports of an explosion before the crash, no radar or visual reports of a fighter aircraft, no such aircraft anyplace close and finally no reason to cover it up.....the USAF would have been doing what the population would expect it to do if it was able to.

jaydeehess · 2nd August 2012, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

That's not my responsibility.

Actually your responsibility would be to explain your 7 word bald contention.

If less plane would end up at the crash site where"s the rest?
Surely you are not putting forth a shoot down by vapourizing beam weapon?

Gamolon · 2nd August 2012, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Could have been shot down.

Terry Butler says the following:

Quote:

"It dropped out of the clouds," too low for a commercial flight, Butler said. The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down."

Taken from:
http://old.post-gazette.com/headline...cenenat4p3.asp

Is this why you won't explain your "shot down explains the lack of debris at the crash site" claim? I assume you think that the plane was completely destroyed in mid air, showering the ground with debris right?

Is that what you are getting at?

ElMondoHummus · 2nd August 2012, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

Why? surely a mid air explosion is likely to create a bigger spread of wreckage not a smaller one.

Yes, agreed. While there's a risk of overgeneralizing here, it's still accurate to say that a shoot down at altitude would distribute debris over a longer path than an impact disintegration would. To a degree, that's simple deduction from the fact that parts will shed from the damaged plane at a higher altitude, and therefore from farther away from the ultimate impact point.

As I recall from previous threads covering this (here are a couple of examples; there are more):

... a shootdown would generally result in a long trail of debris. And logically, it would contrast to Flight 93 in that the debris farthest from the impact point would not be exclusively light materials such as papers, fabrics, and the like, but should also consist of more substantial pieces of aircraft corresponding to which segments of the plane broke off along the path.

Again, we must consider the debris field for Flight 93. There was a primary one, which fell within what, less than a hundred acres? Human remains were all in found in around a tenth of a square mile (70 acres, according to the local coroner's office; I don't recall the figure for the primary debris field for the jet itself). Not a small field, certainly, but the point is that it wasn't a long trail of debris. The secondary one was larger - recall that those light materials were found in Indian Lake, about a mile and a half from the crash site. And again: That was exclusively light material that was attributed to have been blown that far by the 9+ MPH wind that day.

Anyway, if people are going to invoke one comparison, they must accept all characteristics of that comparison. A shootdown would indeed involve a relative lack of debris in the immediate area surrounding the point of impact. But it would also generally trail debris along a path miles long. Given that we know from radar as well as the FDR what Flight 93's flight path was, the fact that debris was not found along it but rather spaces around the impact zone, and then some further southeast of it (in the direction Flight 93 was heading in) tells us that the debris pattern is inconsistent with the notion of a shootdown.

Oh, and let's remember this too: 95% of the jet was recovered. So yes, they do know how the debris was scattered.

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

The was no reports of an explosion before the crash, no radar or visual reports of a fighter aircraft, no such aircraft anyplace close and finally no reason to cover it up.....the USAF would have been doing what the population would expect it to do if it was able to.

I've been saying this for a while too. Too many conspiracy advocates try to make their arguments fly by subtracting context and only selectively adding some back. To me, that's dishonest. You cannot draw a firm conclusion from just one element of a narrative without considering all the rest of the known elements. All those facts contradict the notion of a shootdown, nevermind the pattern of the debris spread. Isolating just the debris and drawing a grand conclusion from it is irrationality at its worst.

ElMondoHummus · 2nd August 2012, 11:58 AM

Oh, folks, let's also remember Mark's site on this:
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page2

As those two threads I linked above, plus others in the archives show, we've discussed this before (granted, that's the case with all these claims, but anyway...). I don't know why it's being cited again, save for trying to create the appearance of debate. The fact of the matter is, the case is settled, nevermind someone's isolation of one specific point from the context of why the overall matter is settled.

twinstead · 2nd August 2012, 12:09 PM

You mean some people ignore the preponderance of evidence and simply take a small piece in isolation and try to claim something other than what the rest of the evidence points to?

I'm shocked. SHOCKED I SAY!

jaydeehess · 2nd August 2012, 12:21 PM

I have thought about it and sine RedI is remaining silent I will go devil's advocate and propose a scenario for less crash site debris due to a shoot down by conventional air to air weaponry.

1- a/c is hit causing it to crash within seconds
2- shoot down debris does constitute a significant percentage by volume (complaint was that debris found would only fill a couple of dumpsters) and was scattered along the flight path
3- as people rushed to the impact site, a group of black ops specialists were out collecting the non-impact site debris and removing it.

The above is reminiscent of the CiT's light pole toppling black ops specialists (aka spooks)

jaydeehess · 2nd August 2012, 12:23 PM

double post

ElMondoHummus · 2nd August 2012, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by twinstead

I'm shocked. SHOCKED I SAY!

tfk · 2nd August 2012, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Thanks for posting that link so I won't have to repeat myself. Nor will I have to point out the fact again that the soil samples were taken days after the crash, not after the clean-up.

The article referenced was dated a year after the crash.

I also stated (bolding added):

Originally Posted by Tribune-Review article

Crash site cleanup cost $850,000

By The Tribune-Review Wednesday, September 11, 2002

The state Department of Environmental Protection has approved the final cleanup report for the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site near Shanksville in Somerset County.

"United Airlines did a thorough job in its investigation of the environmental effects from the September 2001 plane crash," said Charles A. Duritsa, the DEP southwest regional director.

"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."

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.

The site became a burial ground for 40 passengers and crew members who died after the jetliner was hijacked by four terrorists one year ago today.

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.

The material was in an area most likely to be contaminated by jet fuel, he said.

"Tests showed the area is considered safe," Duritsa added.

Soil sampling was conducted in a grid pattern and samples were collected down to 6 inches, according to the DEP. A geoprobe was used throughout the crash site to evaluate deeper impacts. Groundwater samples were collected from four monitoring wells installed in the zone.

I find it absolutely impossible to believe that all of the bolded actions were identified, much less taken, within 4 days of the event.

I find it impossible to believe that the crash pit was excavated and the backfill material separated from evidence and sampled, all within 4 days.

I find it impossible that wells were dug, determination of sample sites determined to meet EPA requirements within 4 days.

I find it impossible that the EPA would have accepted a grand total of 4 days work as total remediation of jet fuel contamination at the site.

So, Red, please provide your evidence that soil samples in the immediate location of the crash were taken within 4 days of the crash & shown to be jet fuel free.

BTW, does anyone know of any reference to the people at the site speaking about the smell of jet fuel?

ElMondoHummus · 2nd August 2012, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by tfk

BTW, does anyone know of any reference to the people at the site speaking about the smell of jet fuel?

Oh, definitely:

Originally Posted by Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company Assistant Fire Chief Rick 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."
Originally Posted by Reporter Jon Meyer, WJAC-TV, Johnstown

"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."
Originally Posted by Bill Baker, Somerset County Emergency Management Agency

"The jet fuel smell was really strong...There were plane parts hanging in the trees."

There are of course many more quotes there.

LSSBB · 2nd August 2012, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

That's not my responsibility.

Look, if you can't explain yourself what happened to the rest of the debris in a shootdown, demonstrate a modicum of testicular fortitude and admit it.

beachnut · 2nd August 2012, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I'll put the Flight 93 crash site up there with WTC 7 as the two most perplexing and unconvincing aspects of the official story.

So I have a few layman's questions, that I'm sure our resident experts will provide well sourced and logical explanations for.

No, Flight 93 and WTC 7 are the easiest to understand. Only a fringe few share your willful ignorance on WTC 7 and Flight 93.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

1) How did the engine (arguably the densest and heaviest piece of the plane) bounce 300 yards away but smaller lighter pieces bore into the ground 20 to 30 ft?

It was a piece of the engine, and engine which rotates at high RPM. You have ignored the evidence and remain in the dark; on purpose?

What would not bore into the ground at 500 mph? There are thousands (at least hundreds) of trained aircraft accident investigators who you could check with.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

2) Instead of displacing lage amounts of dirt, how did the soil follow the impact and cover up the plane, burying it deep into the ground?

It is said there are no dumb questions, but after 10 years this is a great example of a dumb question.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

3) Why didn't EPA soil contamination analyses report fuel contamination?

Because they did a good job cleaning? The jet fuel burned up. Where are the samples from, ground water? Another silly question if you think this would support your delusional version of 911. The version you can't explain.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

4) Why is the rim of the crater undisturbed, unburned grass?

Long range photo, "compresses space"; your question is based on nonsense.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

There are countless more questions that can be asked and only speculation and wide stretches of imagination to come up with explanations for the strange case of Flight 93.

Nothing strange about Flight 93. Those who lie about 93, fooled you.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

In the interest of full disclosure, I went toe to toe with Gravy when I first joined this forum and he showed me every picture he could dig up and every report he could find, but the totality of that "evidence" amounted to a third of a dumpster of scrap and few five gallon buckets. I've seen every picture and read nearly anything associated with the crash site, and my above questions do not have sourced, logical responses. Maybe I missed something.

Gravy used evidence, you don't.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Could have been shot down.

No, Flight 93's FDR shows a full up aircraft under control at impact. Evidence beats speculation.

Will you ignore the evidence? Yes.

ozeco41 · 2nd August 2012, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Yes, agreed. While there's a risk of overgeneralizing here, it's still accurate to say that a shoot down at altitude would distribute debris over a longer path than an impact disintegration would. To a degree, that's simple deduction from the fact that parts will shed from the damaged plane at a higher altitude, and therefore from farther away from the ultimate impact point....

From memory the debris from Lockerbie was spread over more than 50 miles - from an explosion in a 'plane flying at about 5 miles altitude. That fact surprised us technical types when we studied it as part of a Counter Disaster Management course.

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

...I've been saying this for a while too. Too many conspiracy advocates try to make their arguments fly by subtracting context and only selectively adding some back. To me, that's dishonest....

...the RedIbis claim is a classic of 'partial truth' selection:

Originally Posted by RedIbis

...In the interest of full disclosure, I went toe to toe with Gravy when I first joined this forum and he showed me every picture he could dig up and every report he could find, but the totality of that "evidence" amounted to a third of a dumpster of scrap and few five gallon buckets. I've seen every picture and read nearly anything associated with the crash site, and my above questions do not have sourced, logical responses....

Since the absence of a lot of debris is support for the 'flew into the ground' explanation and counts heavily against 'shot down'. Still he seems to recognise the failure of his logic in the ironic final sentence:

Originally Posted by RedIbis

... Maybe I missed something.

You said it Red.

Grizzly Bear · 2nd August 2012, 06:07 PM

Flight 93 is the most perplexing conspiracy theory of the group, in part because unlike the the WTC cases they can't say "oh it's never happened before so we couldn't possibly know" so they need to find other ways to find something wrong.

1337m4n · 2nd August 2012, 09:49 PM

1) Do you agree that anti-air missiles cause planes to crash, not to disintegrate?

2) What is the object in this post?

3) There is a smoldering crater, or at least something that resembles a smoldering crater, in Shanksville. If a plane didn't crash there, why is it there?

4) If [insert NWO bad guy of choice] went to all the trouble to fake a smoldering crater, why did he not also plant huge chunks of airplane into said crater? If he didn't fake it, then why is that smoldering crater there?

5) If Flight 93 did not crash in said smoldering crater, does it still exist? If not, then why does it no longer exist? If so, then where could it have gone?

6) Was any missile debris found anywhere near the Shanksville crash site?

7) What, if any, professional qualifications and expertise do you have that make you an authority on what high-speed aircraft impacts should look like?

8) How many cleanup workers and emergency response workers doubt that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville?

9) How many United Airlines employees doubt that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville?

10) Can you post a picture of an airplane crash that demonstrates what you think the crater should look like?

11) Did anyone at the Moussaoui trial complain about a lack of evidence that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville?

These will be reposted in every Flight 93 thread you post in until satisfactory answers are given.

jaydeehess · 3rd August 2012, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Some a/c parts were thrown away from the crater. Engines at full power would have internal fans rotating very fast and would not necessarily act the same as those with only a linear component of velocity.
.

Originally Posted by Illuminist14

Thanks yes that is logical, but the other argument is that the engine bounced? But this can be explained by the angle of impact I think and the velocity of the plane to produce so much momentum on the detached engine.

Originally Posted by njslim

According to Wallace Miller, Somerset County Corner, One of the engine fans broke off on impact and rolled 300 yards downhill to land in catch pond at bottom of hill

Now one would have thought that this is the end of the issue........

Originally Posted by Simon666

Bouncing engines:

According to Popular Mechanics, the engine was around 300 yards from the main crash site, and had travelled in the direction the plane was moving.

Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards."
ttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=7&c=y

http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html

Maximum range of anything on a ballistic path is x = v²/g. For 300 yards or 273.8 meters, given g = 9.81 m/s², this means a lowerbound velocity limit of 51 m/s assuming optimum bounce back angle of 45 degrees. Given an impact speed of 250 m/s according to the official story, this means a plastically deforming metal engine on soft ground would have a coefficient of restitution at an absolute minimum of 51/250 ~= 0.2. For anything other than 45° optimum bounce back angle, you'll soon enough find your Flight 93 engine is behaving like an elastically deforming metal object impacting rubber in a perfect vacuum. Sure.

Yet for some odd reason Simon wishes to completely ignore the rotational energy stored in the engines and discount that from contributing to what Hynes said, "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground,".

One can actuall demonstrate easily what this rotation can contribute to the distance. If you drop a rubber ball straight down to a flat surface, without spin, it bounces straight back up. Impart a spin to the ball but having it still fall straight down and the ball bounces away at an angle.

In this case the maximum distance possible according to the calculations Simon posted, is zero, and that is exactly how far it travelled before hitting the ground. ....... However the rotation of the ball causes a transfer of the rotational momentum to a horizontal force (proportional to deltamomentum divided by time of contact) due to the friction upon collision with the surface.

So linear velocity(momentum) considerations are far from the end of the story.

ElMondoHummus · 3rd August 2012, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by ozeco41

From memory the debris from Lockerbie was spread over more than 50 miles - from an explosion in a 'plane flying at about 5 miles altitude. That fact surprised us technical types when we studied it as part of a Counter Disaster Management course.

Huh. I didn't know that about the Lockerbie disaster. I should read up on that sometime.

According to the flight path study, right before Flight 93 went into its dive, the FDR places its altitude at 10,000 ft.; that study puts it at a single minute and some seconds (10:02am to 10:03:11am). I wonder what the horizontal component of its velocity was, because I'd think that it would give an indication of roughly how long the hypothetical "debris path" would be if the plane was truly hit by a missile and was shedding parts on the way down.

I read the flight data recorder report... and couldn't make heads or tails of it

. I have to lean on the flight path study to understand what the FDR was telling all of us.

But anyway... this is all just musing, just light curiosity. Again, the convergence of evidence shows what happened, and at no point is a missile involved. Nothing about the CVR, FDR, radar track, etc. show it. And we all know that. That's why I'm aggravated at these pseudo-sly attempts to make truther "questions" sound legitimate. If you're concerned about the state of the debris recovered for Flight 93, evaluate your concern in the context of the FDR, CVR, radar data, recovery efforts, recovery personnel testimonies, flight path study, airfone calls, etc. Don't present it in isolation, raise your eyebrow, and imply "Conspiracy!". Look at all the evidence. I know it's useful sometimes to isolate specific items in order to study them, but at some point a researcher must contextualize what he's discovered. That's what truthers all avoid doing; they'd rather construct an artificial context of conspiracy in order to support their allegations. That in a way turns their area of study into a self-licking lollipop: "There's a conspiracy, so let's study all this; oh look, all this indicates a conspiracy". That's a terrible way to approach knowledge generation.

Blech... rant over. I just wish that there was just a bit more substance over insinuation in conspiracy theories. These things have literally become pseudoscience and pseudohistory.

RedIbis · 3rd August 2012, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by tfk

The article referenced was dated a year after the crash.

I also stated (bolding added):

I find it absolutely impossible to believe that all of the bolded actions were identified, much less taken, within 4 days of the event.

I find it impossible to believe that the crash pit was excavated and the backfill material separated from evidence and sampled, all within 4 days.

I find it impossible that wells were dug, determination of sample sites determined to meet EPA requirements within 4 days.

I find it impossible that the EPA would have accepted a grand total of 4 days work as total remediation of jet fuel contamination at the site.

So, Red, please provide your evidence that soil samples in the immediate location of the crash were taken within 4 days of the crash & shown to be jet fuel free.

BTW, does anyone know of any reference to the people at the site speaking about the smell of jet fuel?

So you think the following was done after the cleanup?

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

LSSBB · 3rd August 2012, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

So you think the following was done after the cleanup?

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

Say, where'd the missing material go in your shootdown? Figger'd it out yet?

A W Smith · 3rd August 2012, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

So you think the following was done after the cleanup?

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

http://web.archive.org/web/200212181...es/091201f.htm

Quote:

9/16/2001 - Somerset Crash Site- FBI and other investigators at the scene have excavated the crash site down to a depth of about 45 feet looking for clues. Digging a trench that deep requires special care to avoid cave-ins and constant monitoring to ensure any fumes from soil contaminated with jet fuel and hydraulic fluid do not present a hazard to emergency workers.

jaydeehess · 3rd August 2012, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

How would that change anything on the crash site?

Hans

Originally Posted by RedIbis

It would explain the lack of debris.

Originally Posted by LSSBB

How exactly would it do that?

Originally Posted by RedIbis

That's not my responsibility.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Actually your responsibility would be to explain your 7 word bald contention.

If less plane would end up at the crash site where"s the rest?
Surely you are not putting forth a shoot down by vapourizing beam weapon?

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

I have thought about it and sine RedI is remaining silent I will go devil's advocate and propose a scenario for less crash site debris due to a shoot down by conventional air to air weaponry.

1- a/c is hit causing it to crash within seconds
2- shoot down debris does constitute a significant percentage by volume (complaint was that debris found would only fill a couple of dumpsters) and was scattered along the flight path
3- as people rushed to the impact site, a group of black ops specialists were out collecting the non-impact site debris and removing it.

RedI,, you going to get around to fleshing out your contention or shall we just go with my take on what you are trying to tell us?

RedIbis · 3rd August 2012, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by A W Smith

http://web.archive.org/web/200212181...es/091201f.htm

Thank you for clearing up that the excavation was done pre-clean up. Pass this important info to the debunkers-in-residence.

ANTPogo · 3rd August 2012, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Thank you for clearing up that the excavation was done pre-clean up. Pass this important info to the debunkers-in-residence.

When do you think the backfill was done?

1337m4n · 3rd August 2012, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Thank you for clearing up that the excavation was done pre-clean up. Pass this important info to the debunkers-in-residence.

Maybe I gave you too much to answer all at once? Okay, how about we just do one question at a time then.

Do you agree that anti-air missiles cause planes to crash, not to disintegrate?

LSSBB · 3rd August 2012, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

Maybe I gave you too much to answer all at once? Okay, how about we just do one question at a time then.

Do you agree that anti-air missiles cause planes to crash, not to disintegrate?

It seems like he thinks they don't just make them disintegrate, they make them evaporate.

waypastvne · 3rd August 2012, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

It seems like he thinks they don't just make them disintegrate, they make them evaporate.

It could have turned to dust.

1337m4n · 3rd August 2012, 01:37 PM

DEW space beams destroyed 93?

Now we're getting somewhere.

oody · 3rd August 2012, 02:23 PM

delete

A W Smith · 3rd August 2012, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Thank you for clearing up that the excavation was done pre-clean up. Pass this important info to the debunkers-in-residence.

maybe you can direct me to a post claiming that the EPA did site remediation before victim or wreckage recovery?, As far as I can recall in the years I have been here, NO ONE claimed that, Just YOU claiming there was no evidence of jet fuel whatsoever present at the site.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

If there's no contamination of the soil, there was no fuel.

Which flies in the face of

Quote:

9/16/2001 - Somerset Crash Site- FBI and other investigators at the scene have excavated the crash site down to a depth of about 45 feet looking for clues. Digging a trench that deep requires special care to avoid cave-ins and constant monitoring to ensure any fumes from soil contaminated with jet fuel and hydraulic fluid do not present a hazard to emergency workers.

RedIbis · 3rd August 2012, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by A W Smith

maybe you can direct me to a post claiming that the EPA did site remediation before victim or wreckage recovery?, As far as I can recall in the years I have been here, NO ONE claimed that, Just YOU claiming there was no evidence of jet fuel whatsoever present at the site.

Which flies in the face of

Quote:

Digging a trench that deep requires special care to avoid cave-ins and constant monitoring to ensure any fumes from soil contaminated with jet fuel and hydraulic fluid do not present a hazard to emergency workers.

I took this to be a common precaution, not a statement of the soil's condition. Is that what you think it's saying?

1st August 2012, 09:09 PM	#81
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,600	Originally Posted by RedIbis Could have been shot down. How would that change anything on the crash site? Quote: I have no idea. Now take a shot at my questions. Was done. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

2nd August 2012, 06:29 AM	#82
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans How would that change anything on the crash site? It would explain the lack of debris.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

2nd August 2012, 07:14 AM	#83
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,490	Originally Posted by RedIbis It would explain the lack of debris. How exactly would it do that?
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

2nd August 2012, 07:30 AM	#84
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by LSSBB How exactly would it do that? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just being intentionally obtuse.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

2nd August 2012, 07:42 AM	#85
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,734	And I'm not, and I'm going to assume you're dodging the question.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

2nd August 2012, 07:45 AM	#86
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,600	Originally Posted by RedIbis It would explain the lack of debris. I don't see how. Please be more specific: I am aware that some of the debris would show signs of explosions or bullets, but otherwise, in your opinion what would be the the difference between the debris field of a plane that was shot down and one that was flown into the ground? Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

2nd August 2012, 07:57 AM	#87
Captain_Swoop Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 3,906	If it was shot down how would the crash site be different? Where would the debris be if not at the crash site?

2nd August 2012, 08:13 AM	#88
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,490	Originally Posted by RedIbis I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just being intentionally obtuse. You call that giving me the benefit of the doubt?? One more time, without apparent condescension, since I fail to see your point, and with rewording for possible improvements to comprehension: How does being "shot down" lead to less debris at the crash site? Where did the rest of the debris go?
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

2nd August 2012, 09:11 AM	#89
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by LSSBB [...]since I fail to see your point,[...] That's not my responsibility.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

2nd August 2012, 10:06 AM	#90
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Originally Posted by RedIbis It would explain the lack of debris. Why? surely a mid air explosion is likely to create a bigger spread of wreckage not a smaller one. The was no reports of an explosion before the crash, no radar or visual reports of a fighter aircraft, no such aircraft anyplace close and finally no reason to cover it up.....the USAF would have been doing what the population would expect it to do if it was able to.

2nd August 2012, 11:25 AM	#91
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,798	Originally Posted by RedIbis That's not my responsibility. Actually your responsibility would be to explain your 7 word bald contention. If less plane would end up at the crash site where"s the rest? Surely you are not putting forth a shoot down by vapourizing beam weapon?

2nd August 2012, 11:35 AM	#92
Gamolon Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,262	Originally Posted by RedIbis Could have been shot down. Terry Butler says the following: Quote: "It dropped out of the clouds," too low for a commercial flight, Butler said. The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down." Taken from: http://old.post-gazette.com/headline...cenenat4p3.asp Is this why you won't explain your "shot down explains the lack of debris at the crash site" claim? I assume you think that the plane was completely destroyed in mid air, showering the ground with debris right? Is that what you are getting at?
Gamolon Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,262

2nd August 2012, 11:55 AM	#93
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,938	Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills Why? surely a mid air explosion is likely to create a bigger spread of wreckage not a smaller one. Yes, agreed. While there's a risk of overgeneralizing here, it's still accurate to say that a shoot down at altitude would distribute debris over a longer path than an impact disintegration would. To a degree, that's simple deduction from the fact that parts will shed from the damaged plane at a higher altitude, and therefore from farther away from the ultimate impact point. As I recall from previous threads covering this (here are a couple of examples; there are more): http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106706 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=179128 ... a shootdown would generally result in a long trail of debris. And logically, it would contrast to Flight 93 in that the debris farthest from the impact point would not be exclusively light materials such as papers, fabrics, and the like, but should also consist of more substantial pieces of aircraft corresponding to which segments of the plane broke off along the path. Again, we must consider the debris field for Flight 93. There was a primary one, which fell within what, less than a hundred acres? Human remains were all in found in around a tenth of a square mile (70 acres, according to the local coroner's office; I don't recall the figure for the primary debris field for the jet itself). Not a small field, certainly, but the point is that it wasn't a long trail of debris. The secondary one was larger - recall that those light materials were found in Indian Lake, about a mile and a half from the crash site. And again: That was exclusively light material that was attributed to have been blown that far by the 9+ MPH wind that day. Anyway, if people are going to invoke one comparison, they must accept all characteristics of that comparison. A shootdown would indeed involve a relative lack of debris in the immediate area surrounding the point of impact. But it would also generally trail debris along a path miles long. Given that we know from radar as well as the FDR what Flight 93's flight path was, the fact that debris was not found along it but rather spaces around the impact zone, and then some further southeast of it (in the direction Flight 93 was heading in) tells us that the debris pattern is inconsistent with the notion of a shootdown. Oh, and let's remember this too: 95% of the jet was recovered. So yes, they do know how the debris was scattered. Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills The was no reports of an explosion before the crash, no radar or visual reports of a fighter aircraft, no such aircraft anyplace close and finally no reason to cover it up.....the USAF would have been doing what the population would expect it to do if it was able to. I've been saying this for a while too. Too many conspiracy advocates try to make their arguments fly by subtracting context and only selectively adding some back. To me, that's dishonest. You cannot draw a firm conclusion from just one element of a narrative without considering all the rest of the known elements. All those facts contradict the notion of a shootdown, nevermind the pattern of the debris spread. Isolating just the debris and drawing a grand conclusion from it is irrationality at its worst.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 2nd August 2012 at 12:00 PM.

2nd August 2012, 11:58 AM	#94
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,938	Oh, folks, let's also remember Mark's site on this: https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page2 As those two threads I linked above, plus others in the archives show, we've discussed this before (granted, that's the case with all these claims, but anyway...). I don't know why it's being cited again, save for trying to create the appearance of debate. The fact of the matter is, the case is settled, nevermind someone's isolation of one specific point from the context of why the overall matter is settled.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

2nd August 2012, 12:09 PM	#95
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,572	You mean some people ignore the preponderance of evidence and simply take a small piece in isolation and try to claim something other than what the rest of the evidence points to? I'm shocked. SHOCKED I SAY!
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

2nd August 2012, 12:21 PM	#96
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,798	I have thought about it and sine RedI is remaining silent I will go devil's advocate and propose a scenario for less crash site debris due to a shoot down by conventional air to air weaponry. 1- a/c is hit causing it to crash within seconds 2- shoot down debris does constitute a significant percentage by volume (complaint was that debris found would only fill a couple of dumpsters) and was scattered along the flight path 3- as people rushed to the impact site, a group of black ops specialists were out collecting the non-impact site debris and removing it. The above is reminiscent of the CiT's light pole toppling black ops specialists (aka spooks)

2nd August 2012, 12:23 PM	#97
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,798	double post
	Last edited by jaydeehess; 2nd August 2012 at 12:33 PM.

2nd August 2012, 12:25 PM	#98
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,938	Originally Posted by twinstead I'm shocked. SHOCKED I SAY!
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

2nd August 2012, 01:27 PM	#99
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978	Originally Posted by RedIbis Thanks for posting that link so I won't have to repeat myself. Nor will I have to point out the fact again that the soil samples were taken days after the crash, not after the clean-up. The article referenced was dated a year after the crash. I also stated (bolding added): Originally Posted by Tribune-Review article Crash site cleanup cost $850,000 By The Tribune-Review Wednesday, September 11, 2002 The state Department of Environmental Protection has approved the final cleanup report for the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site near Shanksville in Somerset County. "United Airlines did a thorough job in its investigation of the environmental effects from the September 2001 plane crash," said Charles A. Duritsa, the DEP southwest regional director. "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." 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. The site became a burial ground for 40 passengers and crew members who died after the jetliner was hijacked by four terrorists one year ago today. 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. The material was in an area most likely to be contaminated by jet fuel, he said. "Tests showed the area is considered safe," Duritsa added. Soil sampling was conducted in a grid pattern and samples were collected down to 6 inches, according to the DEP. A geoprobe was used throughout the crash site to evaluate deeper impacts. Groundwater samples were collected from four monitoring wells installed in the zone. I find it absolutely impossible to believe that all of the bolded actions were identified, much less taken, within 4 days of the event. I find it impossible to believe that the crash pit was excavated and the backfill material separated from evidence and sampled, all within 4 days. I find it impossible that wells were dug, determination of sample sites determined to meet EPA requirements within 4 days. I find it impossible that the EPA would have accepted a grand total of 4 days work as total remediation of jet fuel contamination at the site. So, Red, please provide your evidence that soil samples in the immediate location of the crash were taken within 4 days of the crash & shown to be jet fuel free. BTW, does anyone know of any reference to the people at the site speaking about the smell of jet fuel?
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978

2nd August 2012, 01:45 PM	#100
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,938	Originally Posted by tfk BTW, does anyone know of any reference to the people at the site speaking about the smell of jet fuel? Oh, definitely: Originally Posted by Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company Assistant Fire Chief Rick 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." Originally Posted by Reporter Jon Meyer, WJAC-TV, Johnstown "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." Originally Posted by Bill Baker, Somerset County Emergency Management Agency "The jet fuel smell was really strong...There were plane parts hanging in the trees." There are of course many more quotes there.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

2nd August 2012, 02:00 PM	#101
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,490	Originally Posted by RedIbis That's not my responsibility. Look, if you can't explain yourself what happened to the rest of the debris in a shootdown, demonstrate a modicum of testicular fortitude and admit it.
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

2nd August 2012, 03:43 PM	#102
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,881	Originally Posted by RedIbis I'll put the Flight 93 crash site up there with WTC 7 as the two most perplexing and unconvincing aspects of the official story. So I have a few layman's questions, that I'm sure our resident experts will provide well sourced and logical explanations for. No, Flight 93 and WTC 7 are the easiest to understand. Only a fringe few share your willful ignorance on WTC 7 and Flight 93. Originally Posted by RedIbis 1) How did the engine (arguably the densest and heaviest piece of the plane) bounce 300 yards away but smaller lighter pieces bore into the ground 20 to 30 ft? It was a piece of the engine, and engine which rotates at high RPM. You have ignored the evidence and remain in the dark; on purpose? What would not bore into the ground at 500 mph? There are thousands (at least hundreds) of trained aircraft accident investigators who you could check with. Originally Posted by RedIbis 2) Instead of displacing lage amounts of dirt, how did the soil follow the impact and cover up the plane, burying it deep into the ground? It is said there are no dumb questions, but after 10 years this is a great example of a dumb question. Originally Posted by RedIbis 3) Why didn't EPA soil contamination analyses report fuel contamination? Because they did a good job cleaning? The jet fuel burned up. Where are the samples from, ground water? Another silly question if you think this would support your delusional version of 911. The version you can't explain. Originally Posted by RedIbis 4) Why is the rim of the crater undisturbed, unburned grass? Long range photo, "compresses space"; your question is based on nonsense. Originally Posted by RedIbis There are countless more questions that can be asked and only speculation and wide stretches of imagination to come up with explanations for the strange case of Flight 93. Nothing strange about Flight 93. Those who lie about 93, fooled you. Originally Posted by RedIbis In the interest of full disclosure, I went toe to toe with Gravy when I first joined this forum and he showed me every picture he could dig up and every report he could find, but the totality of that "evidence" amounted to a third of a dumpster of scrap and few five gallon buckets. I've seen every picture and read nearly anything associated with the crash site, and my above questions do not have sourced, logical responses. Maybe I missed something. Gravy used evidence, you don't. Originally Posted by RedIbis Could have been shot down. No, Flight 93's FDR shows a full up aircraft under control at impact. Evidence beats speculation. Will you ignore the evidence? Yes.

2nd August 2012, 04:50 PM	#103
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus Yes, agreed. While there's a risk of overgeneralizing here, it's still accurate to say that a shoot down at altitude would distribute debris over a longer path than an impact disintegration would. To a degree, that's simple deduction from the fact that parts will shed from the damaged plane at a higher altitude, and therefore from farther away from the ultimate impact point.... From memory the debris from Lockerbie was spread over more than 50 miles - from an explosion in a 'plane flying at about 5 miles altitude. That fact surprised us technical types when we studied it as part of a Counter Disaster Management course. Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus ...I've been saying this for a while too. Too many conspiracy advocates try to make their arguments fly by subtracting context and only selectively adding some back. To me, that's dishonest.... ...the RedIbis claim is a classic of 'partial truth' selection: Originally Posted by RedIbis ...In the interest of full disclosure, I went toe to toe with Gravy when I first joined this forum and he showed me every picture he could dig up and every report he could find, but the totality of that "evidence" amounted to a third of a dumpster of scrap and few five gallon buckets. I've seen every picture and read nearly anything associated with the crash site, and my above questions do not have sourced, logical responses.... Since the absence of a lot of debris is support for the 'flew into the ground' explanation and counts heavily against 'shot down'. Still he seems to recognise the failure of his logic in the ironic final sentence: Originally Posted by RedIbis ... Maybe I missed something. You said it Red.

2nd August 2012, 06:07 PM	#104
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	Flight 93 is the most perplexing conspiracy theory of the group, in part because unlike the the WTC cases they can't say "oh it's never happened before so we couldn't possibly know" so they need to find other ways to find something wrong.
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 2nd August 2012 at 06:13 PM.

2nd August 2012, 09:49 PM	#105
1337m4n Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 3,499	Hey, anybody remember this post from 2 years ago that RedIbis never answered? 1) Do you agree that anti-air missiles cause planes to crash, not to disintegrate? 2) What is the object in this post? 3) There is a smoldering crater, or at least something that resembles a smoldering crater, in Shanksville. If a plane didn't crash there, why is it there? 4) If [insert NWO bad guy of choice] went to all the trouble to fake a smoldering crater, why did he not also plant huge chunks of airplane into said crater? If he didn't fake it, then why is that smoldering crater there? 5) If Flight 93 did not crash in said smoldering crater, does it still exist? If not, then why does it no longer exist? If so, then where could it have gone? 6) Was any missile debris found anywhere near the Shanksville crash site? 7) What, if any, professional qualifications and expertise do you have that make you an authority on what high-speed aircraft impacts should look like? 8) How many cleanup workers and emergency response workers doubt that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville? 9) How many United Airlines employees doubt that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville? 10) Can you post a picture of an airplane crash that demonstrates what you think the crater should look like? 11) Did anyone at the Moussaoui trial complain about a lack of evidence that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville? These will be reposted in every Flight 93 thread you post in until satisfactory answers are given.
	__________________ http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif "The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo

3rd August 2012, 05:14 AM	#106
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,798	Originally Posted by jaydeehess Some a/c parts were thrown away from the crater. Engines at full power would have internal fans rotating very fast and would not necessarily act the same as those with only a linear component of velocity. . Originally Posted by Illuminist14 Thanks yes that is logical, but the other argument is that the engine bounced? But this can be explained by the angle of impact I think and the velocity of the plane to produce so much momentum on the detached engine. Originally Posted by njslim According to Wallace Miller, Somerset County Corner, One of the engine fans broke off on impact and rolled 300 yards downhill to land in catch pond at bottom of hill Now one would have thought that this is the end of the issue........ Originally Posted by Simon666 Bouncing engines: According to Popular Mechanics, the engine was around 300 yards from the main crash site, and had travelled in the direction the plane was moving. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." ttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=7&c=y http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html Maximum range of anything on a ballistic path is x = v²/g. For 300 yards or 273.8 meters, given g = 9.81 m/s², this means a lowerbound velocity limit of 51 m/s assuming optimum bounce back angle of 45 degrees. Given an impact speed of 250 m/s according to the official story, this means a plastically deforming metal engine on soft ground would have a coefficient of restitution at an absolute minimum of 51/250 ~= 0.2. For anything other than 45° optimum bounce back angle, you'll soon enough find your Flight 93 engine is behaving like an elastically deforming metal object impacting rubber in a perfect vacuum. Sure. Yet for some odd reason Simon wishes to completely ignore the rotational energy stored in the engines and discount that from contributing to what Hynes said, "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground,". One can actuall demonstrate easily what this rotation can contribute to the distance. If you drop a rubber ball straight down to a flat surface, without spin, it bounces straight back up. Impart a spin to the ball but having it still fall straight down and the ball bounces away at an angle. In this case the maximum distance possible according to the calculations Simon posted, is zero, and that is exactly how far it travelled before hitting the ground. ....... However the rotation of the ball causes a transfer of the rotational momentum to a horizontal force (proportional to deltamomentum divided by time of contact) due to the friction upon collision with the surface. So linear velocity(momentum) considerations are far from the end of the story.
	Last edited by jaydeehess; 3rd August 2012 at 05:41 AM.

3rd August 2012, 06:11 AM	#107
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,938	Originally Posted by ozeco41 From memory the debris from Lockerbie was spread over more than 50 miles - from an explosion in a 'plane flying at about 5 miles altitude. That fact surprised us technical types when we studied it as part of a Counter Disaster Management course. Huh. I didn't know that about the Lockerbie disaster. I should read up on that sometime. According to the flight path study, right before Flight 93 went into its dive, the FDR places its altitude at 10,000 ft.; that study puts it at a single minute and some seconds (10:02am to 10:03:11am). I wonder what the horizontal component of its velocity was, because I'd think that it would give an indication of roughly how long the hypothetical "debris path" would be if the plane was truly hit by a missile and was shedding parts on the way down. I read the flight data recorder report... and couldn't make heads or tails of it . I have to lean on the flight path study to understand what the FDR was telling all of us. But anyway... this is all just musing, just light curiosity. Again, the convergence of evidence shows what happened, and at no point is a missile involved. Nothing about the CVR, FDR, radar track, etc. show it. And we all know that. That's why I'm aggravated at these pseudo-sly attempts to make truther "questions" sound legitimate. If you're concerned about the state of the debris recovered for Flight 93, evaluate your concern in the context of the FDR, CVR, radar data, recovery efforts, recovery personnel testimonies, flight path study, airfone calls, etc. Don't present it in isolation, raise your eyebrow, and imply "Conspiracy!". Look at all the evidence. I know it's useful sometimes to isolate specific items in order to study them, but at some point a researcher must contextualize what he's discovered. That's what truthers all avoid doing; they'd rather construct an artificial context of conspiracy in order to support their allegations. That in a way turns their area of study into a self-licking lollipop: "There's a conspiracy, so let's study all this; oh look, all this indicates a conspiracy". That's a terrible way to approach knowledge generation. Blech... rant over. I just wish that there was just a bit more substance over insinuation in conspiracy theories. These things have literally become pseudoscience and pseudohistory.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

3rd August 2012, 07:17 AM	#108
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by tfk The article referenced was dated a year after the crash. I also stated (bolding added): I find it absolutely impossible to believe that all of the bolded actions were identified, much less taken, within 4 days of the event. I find it impossible to believe that the crash pit was excavated and the backfill material separated from evidence and sampled, all within 4 days. I find it impossible that wells were dug, determination of sample sites determined to meet EPA requirements within 4 days. I find it impossible that the EPA would have accepted a grand total of 4 days work as total remediation of jet fuel contamination at the site. So, Red, please provide your evidence that soil samples in the immediate location of the crash were taken within 4 days of the crash & shown to be jet fuel free. BTW, does anyone know of any reference to the people at the site speaking about the smell of jet fuel? So you think the following was done after the cleanup? "The backfill material was made up mostly of soil and dirt excavated from the pit during the criminal investigation," Duritsa said.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

3rd August 2012, 08:18 AM	#109
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,490	Originally Posted by RedIbis So you think the following was done after the cleanup? "The backfill material was made up mostly of soil and dirt excavated from the pit during the criminal investigation," Duritsa said. Say, where'd the missing material go in your shootdown? Figger'd it out yet?
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

3rd August 2012, 09:16 AM	#110
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	Originally Posted by RedIbis So you think the following was done after the cleanup? "The backfill material was made up mostly of soil and dirt excavated from the pit during the criminal investigation," Duritsa said. http://web.archive.org/web/200212181...es/091201f.htm Quote: 9/16/2001 - Somerset Crash Site- FBI and other investigators at the scene have excavated the crash site down to a depth of about 45 feet looking for clues. Digging a trench that deep requires special care to avoid cave-ins and constant monitoring to ensure any fumes from soil contaminated with jet fuel and hydraulic fluid do not present a hazard to emergency workers.
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

3rd August 2012, 10:27 AM	#111
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,798	Re: Shoot down of Flt 93 Originally Posted by MRC_Hans How would that change anything on the crash site? Hans Originally Posted by RedIbis It would explain the lack of debris. Originally Posted by LSSBB How exactly would it do that? Originally Posted by RedIbis That's not my responsibility. Originally Posted by jaydeehess Actually your responsibility would be to explain your 7 word bald contention. If less plane would end up at the crash site where"s the rest? Surely you are not putting forth a shoot down by vapourizing beam weapon? Originally Posted by jaydeehess I have thought about it and sine RedI is remaining silent I will go devil's advocate and propose a scenario for less crash site debris due to a shoot down by conventional air to air weaponry. 1- a/c is hit causing it to crash within seconds 2- shoot down debris does constitute a significant percentage by volume (complaint was that debris found would only fill a couple of dumpsters) and was scattered along the flight path 3- as people rushed to the impact site, a group of black ops specialists were out collecting the non-impact site debris and removing it. RedI,, you going to get around to fleshing out your contention or shall we just go with my take on what you are trying to tell us?

3rd August 2012, 10:54 AM	#112
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by A W Smith http://web.archive.org/web/200212181...es/091201f.htm Thank you for clearing up that the excavation was done pre-clean up. Pass this important info to the debunkers-in-residence.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

3rd August 2012, 11:18 AM	#113
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,295	Originally Posted by RedIbis Thank you for clearing up that the excavation was done pre-clean up. Pass this important info to the debunkers-in-residence. When do you think the backfill was done?
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris

3rd August 2012, 11:45 AM	#114
1337m4n Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 3,499	Originally Posted by RedIbis Thank you for clearing up that the excavation was done pre-clean up. Pass this important info to the debunkers-in-residence. Maybe I gave you too much to answer all at once? Okay, how about we just do one question at a time then. Do you agree that anti-air missiles cause planes to crash, not to disintegrate?
	__________________ http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif "The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo

3rd August 2012, 12:37 PM	#115
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,490	Originally Posted by 1337m4n Maybe I gave you too much to answer all at once? Okay, how about we just do one question at a time then. Do you agree that anti-air missiles cause planes to crash, not to disintegrate? It seems like he thinks they don't just make them disintegrate, they make them evaporate.
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)