FREE TAPATALK APP

A W Smith · 3rd August 2012, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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

Of course you took it as just "a common precaution" You are after all a truther, It's what I would expect from any lying dirty bird.

Quote:

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."

Quote:

[People who were early to the scene didn't know what to expect. While some people were impressed by how small the crater was, others were impressed by how large it was.] Reporter Jon Meyer, WJAC-TV, Johnstown: "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."

Quote:

Bill Baker, Somerset County Emergency Management Agency: "There was debris everywhere. You couldn't step without walking on a piece of plane part, fabric, or some kind of debris. When they said it was a 757, I looked out across the debris field. I said, "There is no way there is a 757 scattered here. At that time, we didn't know that it was in the hole. The jet fuel smell was really strong...There were plane parts hanging in the trees."

1337m4n · 4th August 2012, 09:06 AM

Here's a picture of a fighter jet after being hit by a missile. Note that it is still mostly intact. This is because your typical anti-air missile doesn't work by disintegrating the target as you seem to believe, but rather by knocking out one or two vital components, such as engines, wings, or elevator flaps:

http://www.realitychex.com/storage/l...=1300530563473

Note also that fighter jets are quite a bit smaller than airliners, and would thus be more likely to be completely disintegrated if the explosive in the missile were big enough to do so. But it wasn't even close.

To get THAT effect you'd have to load your anti-air missile with a payload akin to a small nuke. I think someone would've noticed.

jaydeehess · 4th August 2012, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by lssbb

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

Originally Posted by waypastvne

it could have turned to dust.

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

dew space beams destroyed 93?

Now we're getting somewhere.

ahem!

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?

tfk · 5th August 2012, 08:05 AM

RedI,

Originally Posted by tfk

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.

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.

That is your EVIDENCE...?????

Apparently we have different definitions of that word.
Let's agree to use Webster's definition of the word.

Please re-set & provide your EVIDENCE for your assertion that the jet-fuel free samples that satisfied the EPA were taken 4 days after the crash.

Please explain all those quotes from folks who talked about the overpowering smell of jet fuel.

If you've got no evidence, Red, that was a REALLY lame, and intentionally deceitful, assertion on your part.

tk

PS. Your question makes zero sense.

Have you ever seen anyone do an excavation?

1. Initially, there was exactly enough dirt in the hole required to fill the hole.

2. An airplane impacts, compressing the loose fill & contaminating some of it will fuel.

3. An excavator digs out the hole, exposing some parts of the plane & contents. Other parts of the plane & contents are in the pile of dirt the excavator pull out & heaps into pile A.

4. Parts of plane & contents are pulled out of hole.

5. Pile A is sifted for other parts of plane. These parts are removed, and the sifted dirt produces pile B, which contains just dirt & fuel contaminated dirt.

6. After all the plane & contents are removed from the hole & pile A, then what you have left is a giant hole & pile B: a pile of clean dirt mixed with fuel contaminated dirt.

7 Someone points out that it is against EPA rules to put fuel contaminated dirt back into the ground, so they separate pile B into piles C (fuel contaminated dirt) & pile D (non-fuel contaminated dirt). When they realize this, they probably have to dig up a lot more dirt in order to get all the fuel contaminated dirt out of the ground, adding to the original pile A.

8. They truck away (or clean on site) pile C. If they clean it on site, the cleaned dirt goes right into pile D.

9. When they are done with this, they are left with a giant hole in the ground & a giant pile (pile D) of cleaned dirt.

10. Somebody tells the foreman of the excavating company that he's got to get rid of the hole & get rid of the giant pile of (now clean) fill.

Hmmmm, a giant hole in the ground...
Hmmmm, a giant pile of clean dirt...
Sitting side by side ...
"And I've got to get rid of both of them..."

What to do...?
What to do...?

Red, have you got any ideas?

Grizzly Bear · 5th August 2012, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by waypastvne

It could have turned to dust.

Let's go a step further, maybe the flight never even existed. Maybe the flight itself was a fabrication made to fool the masses. That would explain the lack of debris. And the fabricated crash site.

The sad thing is I wouldn't be surprised if at least a part of the no-plane faction actually believed this

Justin39640 · 5th August 2012, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Simon666

Wow, your observations are not going to change the equations of motion V² / 2gµ for linear motion along a straight line with friction and V²/g sin (2 Theta) for range of a ballistic arc in vacuum. Interesting you suggest I use observations but am forbidden to use observations of other vertically impacting planes leaving no debris of such size. I guess what's good for the goose ain't good for the gander.

They are optimum cases, ballistic trajectories in vacuum and horizontal movement along a straight line. A real model would be a combination of both and would still go along the lines of something times V²/g for distance traveled. Nice try hand-waving physics away. Keep waving harder and you'll take off unlike your toy airplane.

Oh Christ... are you the Psikeyhackr of the Shanksville crash?

Heavy, deformable things will bounce off of water if they're moving fast enough. Last time I checked, dirt is harder than water...

Justin39640 · 5th August 2012, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

40 degrees is very near vertical, for flying purposes.

If your purpose is NOT to crash, it is not an angle you should occupy at 500mph for very long.

Hans

Being right side up would help too.

Justin39640 · 5th August 2012, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

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

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

Spread all over PA.

Captain_Swoop · 6th August 2012, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Justin39640

Spread all over PA.

and was it?

MRC_Hans · 9th August 2012, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Justin39640

Being right side up would help too.

The plane being upside down is evidence of a deliberate dive: Unless you are flying a dive-bomber, you can't put a plane into a steep dive by pushing the stick forward. The normal plane is simply not built for such a useless maneuvre. What you need to do is roll it inverted and pull back on the stick. This also avoids pulling negative g. Of course, if you are committing suicide, comfort may not be a concern, but it is still useful to stay in the seat and in control.

Hans

Simon666 · 9th August 2012, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Justin39640

Heavy, deformable things will bounce off of water if they're moving fast enough.

That obeys to laws of physics too. I just didn't take rotational energy into account yet as was pointed out. It's a bit more complicated, maybe I'll do it when I have some time and the will to do it.

3rd August 2012, 04:38 PM	#121
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	dirty birds = No planer Originally Posted by RedIbis I took this to be a common precaution, not a statement of the soil's condition. Is that what you think it's saying? Of course you took it as just "a common precaution" You are after all a truther, It's what I would expect from any lying dirty bird. Quote: 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." Quote: [People who were early to the scene didn't know what to expect. While some people were impressed by how small the crater was, others were impressed by how large it was.] Reporter Jon Meyer, WJAC-TV, Johnstown: "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." Quote: Bill Baker, Somerset County Emergency Management Agency: "There was debris everywhere. You couldn't step without walking on a piece of plane part, fabric, or some kind of debris. When they said it was a 757, I looked out across the debris field. I said, "There is no way there is a 757 scattered here. At that time, we didn't know that it was in the hole. The jet fuel smell was really strong...There were plane parts hanging in the trees."
	__________________ 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. Last edited by A W Smith; 3rd August 2012 at 04:45 PM.

4th August 2012, 09:06 AM	#122
1337m4n Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 3,499	Here's a picture of a fighter jet after being hit by a missile. Note that it is still mostly intact. This is because your typical anti-air missile doesn't work by disintegrating the target as you seem to believe, but rather by knocking out one or two vital components, such as engines, wings, or elevator flaps: http://www.realitychex.com/storage/l...=1300530563473 Note also that fighter jets are quite a bit smaller than airliners, and would thus be more likely to be completely disintegrated if the explosive in the missile were big enough to do so. But it wasn't even close. To get THAT effect you'd have to load your anti-air missile with a payload akin to a small nuke. I think someone would've noticed.
	__________________ 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 Last edited by 1337m4n; 4th August 2012 at 09:12 AM.

4th August 2012, 09:58 AM	#123
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,966	Originally Posted by lssbb it seems like he thinks they don't just make them disintegrate, they make them evaporate. Originally Posted by waypastvne it could have turned to dust. Originally Posted by 1337m4n dew space beams destroyed 93? Now we're getting somewhere. ahem! 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?
	Last edited by jaydeehess; 4th August 2012 at 10:09 AM.

5th August 2012, 08:05 AM	#124
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978	RedI, Originally Posted by tfk 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. 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. That is your EVIDENCE...????? Apparently we have different definitions of that word. Let's agree to use Webster's definition of the word. Please re-set & provide your EVIDENCE for your assertion that the jet-fuel free samples that satisfied the EPA were taken 4 days after the crash. Please explain all those quotes from folks who talked about the overpowering smell of jet fuel. If you've got no evidence, Red, that was a REALLY lame, and intentionally deceitful, assertion on your part. tk PS. Your question makes zero sense. Have you ever seen anyone do an excavation? 1. Initially, there was exactly enough dirt in the hole required to fill the hole. 2. An airplane impacts, compressing the loose fill & contaminating some of it will fuel. 3. An excavator digs out the hole, exposing some parts of the plane & contents. Other parts of the plane & contents are in the pile of dirt the excavator pull out & heaps into pile A. 4. Parts of plane & contents are pulled out of hole. 5. Pile A is sifted for other parts of plane. These parts are removed, and the sifted dirt produces pile B, which contains just dirt & fuel contaminated dirt. 6. After all the plane & contents are removed from the hole & pile A, then what you have left is a giant hole & pile B: a pile of clean dirt mixed with fuel contaminated dirt. 7 Someone points out that it is against EPA rules to put fuel contaminated dirt back into the ground, so they separate pile B into piles C (fuel contaminated dirt) & pile D (non-fuel contaminated dirt). When they realize this, they probably have to dig up a lot more dirt in order to get all the fuel contaminated dirt out of the ground, adding to the original pile A. 8. They truck away (or clean on site) pile C. If they clean it on site, the cleaned dirt goes right into pile D. 9. When they are done with this, they are left with a giant hole in the ground & a giant pile (pile D) of cleaned dirt. 10. Somebody tells the foreman of the excavating company that he's got to get rid of the hole & get rid of the giant pile of (now clean) fill. Hmmmm, a giant hole in the ground... Hmmmm, a giant pile of clean dirt... Sitting side by side ... "And I've got to get rid of both of them..." What to do...? What to do...? Red, have you got any ideas?
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978

5th August 2012, 05:18 PM	#125
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,692	Originally Posted by waypastvne It could have turned to dust. Let's go a step further, maybe the flight never even existed. Maybe the flight itself was a fabrication made to fool the masses. That would explain the lack of debris. And the fabricated crash site. The sad thing is I wouldn't be surprised if at least a part of the no-plane faction actually believed this
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,692	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 5th August 2012 at 05:19 PM.

5th August 2012, 06:39 PM	#126
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,665	Originally Posted by Simon666 Wow, your observations are not going to change the equations of motion V² / 2gµ for linear motion along a straight line with friction and V²/g sin (2 Theta) for range of a ballistic arc in vacuum. Interesting you suggest I use observations but am forbidden to use observations of other vertically impacting planes leaving no debris of such size. I guess what's good for the goose ain't good for the gander. They are optimum cases, ballistic trajectories in vacuum and horizontal movement along a straight line. A real model would be a combination of both and would still go along the lines of something times V²/g for distance traveled. Nice try hand-waving physics away. Keep waving harder and you'll take off unlike your toy airplane. Oh Christ... are you the Psikeyhackr of the Shanksville crash? Heavy, deformable things will bounce off of water if they're moving fast enough. Last time I checked, dirt is harder than water...
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

5th August 2012, 06:45 PM	#127
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,665	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans 40 degrees is very near vertical, for flying purposes. If your purpose is NOT to crash, it is not an angle you should occupy at 500mph for very long. Hans Being right side up would help too.
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

5th August 2012, 06:49 PM	#128
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,665	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop If it was shot down how would the crash site be different? Where would the debris be if not at the crash site? Spread all over PA.
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

6th August 2012, 09:36 AM	#129
Captain_Swoop Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by Justin39640 Spread all over PA. and was it?

9th August 2012, 07:34 AM	#130
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,604	Originally Posted by Justin39640 Being right side up would help too. The plane being upside down is evidence of a deliberate dive: Unless you are flying a dive-bomber, you can't put a plane into a steep dive by pushing the stick forward. The normal plane is simply not built for such a useless maneuvre. What you need to do is roll it inverted and pull back on the stick. This also avoids pulling negative g. Of course, if you are committing suicide, comfort may not be a concern, but it is still useful to stay in the seat and in control. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

9th August 2012, 10:29 AM	#131
Simon666 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Gates of hell Posts: 2,077	Originally Posted by Justin39640 Heavy, deformable things will bounce off of water if they're moving fast enough. That obeys to laws of physics too. I just didn't take rotational energy into account yet as was pointed out. It's a bit more complicated, maybe I'll do it when I have some time and the will to do it.