Why Flight 93?

[Jonnyclueless]

That imprint could also have been created by a giant goose.

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Could you explain it to me then, please.
(I'm not being facetious)

The plane was between said to be at a 40° angle, but the impact area looks like a 90° angle impact to me.
It's a flaw of mine I guess. People say I focus on little aspects, but I like to understand things fully. I always have. I took a toaster apart when I was 6 years old because I wanted to know how it worked. (So my parents told me)

I also want to see a map that has a compass on it, and the planes flight path.
That way I can fully understand the event.
Those seem to be the two major parts I have not seen much information on yet. What would really help is a picture of the crash sight from above with the flight path and compass on it. I cannot find one.

What this guy said! He is super smart! And cute too!

But seriously, I would love to have the info in my quote.
Would you like to hear my biggest problem with flight 93?
People were at the scene in minutes...and people said they saw some light smoke in the trees, but no fire. That just slaps me in the face.
I cannot get a handle on that. I have never seen or heard of a plane crash that did not have a massive fire afterwards. Columns of thick black smoke streaming into the sky....Flight 93, light gray smoke and no fire.
I know some photo's show fire damage in the trees, but the fire went out in a few minutes? I do not get it.

[Jonnyclueless]

How much oxygen is there 40 feet underground in the mud?

[Brainache]

Why Flight 93? I think the "real" question should be: Why Shanksville?

Quote:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.Shanksville is a borough in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, United States, with a population of 245, as of the 2000 census. It is part of the Johnstown, Pennsylvania Metropolitan Statistical Area as well as the Pittsburgh Tri-State. Shanksville came to international attention during the September 11, 2001 attacks, with the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 nearby.

Hmmm "International attention"...

Quote:

Shanksville's history is traced back to 1798, when Christian Shank lived and operated a grist mill, and two saw mills. Shanksville was incorporated as a borough on January 25, 1913. [1]

More grist for the mill? Could the incorporation of Shanksville have something to do with the Federal Reserve?
Hmmm...

Quote:

As of the census of 2000, there were 245 people, 96 households, and 69 families residing in the borough. The population density was 525.5/km² (1,391.9/mi²). There were 100 housing units at an average density of 214.5/km² (568.1/mi²). The racial makeup of the borough was 100.00% White.

The Reptoids hate Whitey!

Quote:

The crash of United Airlines Flight 93 on September 11, 2001 occurred 2 miles north of Shanksville, outside the borough limits in Stonycreek Township

So it wasn't even Shanksville at all!!! Why are they keeping Stonycreek Township so secret?

/raving lunacy.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I have never seen or heard of a plane crash that did not have a massive fire afterwards.

How many of those crashes involved a high speed plunge at a steep angle into the ground? I'm guessing not many. Most air crashes involve something going wrong on takeoff or on approach for landing, or CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) type of accidents.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

What this guy said! He is super smart! And cute too!

But seriously, I would love to have the info in my quote.
Would you like to hear my biggest problem with flight 93?
People were at the scene in minutes...and people said they saw some light smoke in the trees, but no fire. That just slaps me in the face.
I cannot get a handle on that. I have never seen or heard of a plane crash that did not have a massive fire afterwards. Columns of thick black smoke streaming into the sky....Flight 93, light gray smoke and no fire.
I know some photo's show fire damage in the trees, but the fire went out in a few minutes? I do not get it.

Still spewing denialist nonsense, I see. When do you suppose you'll stop doing that?

Quote:

Then Peterson said he saw a fireball, heard an explosion and saw a mushroom cloud of smoke rise into the sky.

Peterson rushed to the scene on an all-terrain vehicle and when he arrived he saw bits and pieces of an airliner spread over a large area of an abandoned strip-mine in Stonycreek Township.

"There was a crater in the ground that was really burning," Peterson said. Strewn about were pieces of clothing hanging from trees and parts of the Boeing 757, but nothing bigger than a couple of feet long, he said. Many of the items were burning. http://tinyurl.com/fa75e


Local FBI agent Wells Morrison told author Glenn Kashurba what he saw when he arrived at the crash site: "We arrived in the immediate area and walked up to the crater and the burning woods. My first thought was, 'Where is the plane?' Because most of what I saw was this honeycomb looking stuff, which I believe is insulation or something like that. I was not seeing anything that was distinguishable either as human remains or aircraft debris." (Glenn Kashurba, Courage After the Crash, 2002, p. 110)

"Everything was on fire and there were trees knocked down and there was a big hole in the ground."
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/...56/detail.html

Upon arrival, firefighters found small pieces of the plane, spot fires, and a large quantity of fuel scattered across a wide debris field. A quick survey of the scene found no survivors. Additional resources were requested from County Control, which included additional suppression companies and the Somerset Fire Company’s hazardous materials team. http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf

Fleegle said he climbed on the roof of an abandoned cabin and tossed down a burning seat cushion that had landed there.
http://www.flight93crash.com/MyPittsburghLIVE.htm

After FBI hazardous materials response teams examined the remains of the wreckage and determined levels of toxic and flammable materials were low enough for workers to proceed safely in protective gear, investigators fanned out — searching around the soot-rimmed crater the plane left in the ground, and walking into the gash it cut in the nearby woods.

Investigators are using yellow and red flags to stake spots around the site to mark where they had located parts from the aircraft, human remains or personal items belonging to the plane's 38 passengers and seven crewmembers. The painstaking, inch-by-inch search turned up the plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder on Thursday, the "black boxes" that could explain what happened Tuesday after hijackers took control of the plane, and how apparent heroic acts of a few passengers prevented the aircraft from reaching its intended target in Washington, D.C." "Pennsylvania Disaster Workers Respond to Flight 93 Tragedy"


"There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud." http://tinyurl.com/m347n


"I just watched with my mouth open as this yellow mushroom cloud rose up just like an atomic bomb over the hill where I like to go hunting," said 72- year-old John Walsh

Barefoot and in his bathrobe, he drove up the dirt road to rescue anyone he could find. There would be nothing he could do.

Debris, including photographs and other papers that survived the fireball, was strewn over a wide area. Residents have spent days collecting it. http://tinyurl.com/oapxx


Charles Sturtz, 53, who lives just over the hillside from the crash site, said a fireball 200 feet high shot up over the hill. He got to the crash scene even before the firefighters. http://tinyurl.com/rl5qc

The Flight Data Recorder recording. http://tinyurl.com/myayp

The FDR data show that the plane was intact and its systems were operating normally at impact. The plane’s roll angle corresponds to eyewitness reports:

1. Cabin pressure - NORMAL
2. Hydraulics - NORMAL
3. Cargo fire - NORMAL
4. Smoke - NORMAL
5. Engines - RUNNING
6. Engine RPM (N1) 70%
7. Fuel pressure - NORMAL
8. Engine vibration - LO
9. Wind direction - WEST
10. Wind speed - 25 kts
11. Pitch angle - 40 deg down
12. Airspeed - 500 kts
13. Heading - 180 deg
14. Roll angle - 150 deg right
15. AoA - 20 deg negative

The Cockpit Voice Recorder recording transcript: http://tinyurl.com/rxe8a

Details of the 37 phone calls made from the plane:
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/7697.html?mode=reply

Flight paths of 4 planes (Wash. Post)

Recorded Radar Data Study--all four aircraft



You're not even trying. Why?

[leftysergeant]

A good part of the fuel was buried with the fuselage and wings. Some of it would neccessarily have been expelled and quite well-aerated. It would have produced a fireball similar to that at the facade of the Pentagon. It would also have consumed the available oxygen rather quickly. The duration of the burn would not have been long enough to start a generalized fire in the woods.

[Father Dagon]

Originally Posted by NYCEMT86

But now you are questioning the Conspiracy Theorists logic, we all know they don't have any. To think like a CT you must excuse all scientific and rational explanations.

And to add a neck-breaking parable: The logic of CT is like Lenin's theory of imperialism. A CT has to expand or die. ("CTs shuns a vacuum.") Consider the private investigators of the Olof Palme assassination. In the early years, they kept a sound and reasonable level. But then they went right into the swamps of CT. The most infamous of them are Lars Krantz, who claims that he committed suicide assisted by his wife.

(All this is mentioned in greather depht in an article written by Rasmus Fleischer, and I can translate it into english, as it's quite interesting on a meta-level.)

I think that the root to the CT-think is the fallacy that evil, stupidity and various mistakes are aberrations, and not something all too everyday.

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Still spewing denialist nonsense, I see. When do you suppose you'll stop doing that?

*snipped links*
You're not even trying. Why?

I'm not 'spewing' anything. I have areas of concern, and I note them. If you have a problem with it, quit reading them. Got it?

Now, thank you for all those pointless links. They did not address my issue in the least little bit. I realize there was a fireball.
But look at the photo's that were taken from aircraft.
There is a large section of tree's that were burnt badly. Yet, no fire. How do tree's burn that badly and just go out in a few minutes?
It does not make sense to me.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I'm not 'spewing' anything. I have areas of concern, and I note them. If you have a problem with it, quit reading them. Got it?

100% B.S.

In your posts, like those on this page, you make statements of fact about 9/11, nearly every single one of which is 100% wrong, and all of which are 9/11 denier claims.

Quote:

Now, thank you for all those pointless links. They did not address my issue in the least little bit.

Yes, they did. All of the issues you stated. Try reading for comprehension.

Quote:

I realize there was a fireball.

And now you know there were fires in the crater, on the ground, on at least one rooftop, and in the trees, and jet fuel everywhere.

Quote:

But look at the photo's that were taken from aircraft.

No apostrophe needed in "photos." I guess it didn't occur to you that the fires had burned out by the time those photos were taken.

You're not even trying. Why don't you care?

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by Gravy

100% B.S.

In your posts, like those on this page, you make statements of fact about 9/11, nearly every single one of which is 100% wrong, and all of which are 9/11 denier claims.

Yes, they did. All of the issues you stated. Try reading for comprehension.

And now you know there were fires in the crater, on the ground, on at least one rooftop, and in the trees, and jet fuel everywhere.

No apostrophe needed in "photos." I guess it didn't occur to you that the fires had burned out by the time those photos were taken.

You're not even trying. Why don't you care?

*yawn*
I stated from my first post I had a problem with 93. You act like it is new.

When were the earliest pictures taken, Gravy?
How long would a fuel soaked tree burn?
Why don't you go splash a few gallons of kerosine on one and find out. Then explain to me why a patch of burnt trees goes out in less then 10 minutes.
Did you see a continuation of smoke from the 'fireball' picture? No.
Was the smoke even black? No.

Everything I say is denier claims? Like me saying I do not believe in the CT theory? Like that one? Yeap, I'm a CT theorist because I say I'm not. Got to love gravy logic...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc
Where is the large patch of burnt trees in that video?
I see a few black and one smoking....not a large patch.
Why does it not add up? That is why I have a problem with this site, it does not make sense.
You can call me a denier all you want because your opinion means nothing to me. If you have something relevant to show other than a wall of links leading to people saying they saw a fireball, then don't bother.
I do not need a link to the FDR information. Unless the reason for the burnt tree patching growing in size somehow and them not burning for longer than 10 minutes is on it.


Pic one is the flight 93 'fireball' pic. Note the lack of fire in the 'fireball'.
Pic two is ordinance in Beirut-airport.
Pic three is a plane crash.
Note the differences?

If you think I am saying no plane crashed there, then you're wrong.
What I am saying is that something is not right about the flight '93 story.

[DGM]

Quote:

How long would a fuel soaked tree burn?
Why don't you go splash a few gallons of kerosine on one and find out. Then explain to me why a patch of burnt trees goes out in less then 10 minutes.
Did you see a continuation of smoke from the 'fireball' picture? No.
Was the smoke even black? No.

Don't forget that most of the liquid fuel (traveling at 580 mph) would be forced deep into the ground where it can't burn. The fire ball is from the vaporized fuel. The fuel wouldn't just splash at that speed.

[Brainache]

I'm not from that part of the world, but would it be surprising if at about 9.30am on a September morning the trees near that field were covered with dew?

As the plane crashes into the ground, the tanks are smashed and a large amount of the fuel is aerosolised then ignited. The resulting fireball is intense, but brief. The dew is vaporised and the trees get charred, but the fireball doesn't last long enough to cause a full on forrest fire.

Now if it had've happened above Eucalyptus trees in mid summer in Australia it might have been different.

I'm no expert, so I admit I may be totally wrong here, but it seems to make sense to me.

[Devil's Advocate]

There is not need to start name calling and all that. If people remain civil then I will as well. Thanks to the two posters that followed my last reply for trying to come up with reasons why the blast looks like an ordinance of some type going off and not acting like a child. Leave that childish junk at the playground.

I can somewhat see why the plane going into the ground would limit the fire. However, that still does not explain the color of the blast, the lack of smoke from trees that should have continued the smoke ascension, why the fire burned itself out so quickly, or the fact that the video showed the volume of trees that were burned badly in later photo's was nothing like what we see from a video that was shot after fire crews were there .
How did the damage to the trees get worse in the later photo's?
Also, it was stated that the area did have fuel around it. Why did it not burn?

And to further my problem with it all, I still have not see a compass direction of the impact area and the flight path of the plane from the FDR on a picture.
It seems like that information would be important as well.

[DGM]

Quote:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flig...evidence%2Cman

The information you seek is here including a map. In the future may I suggest you try a little harder. This is from Gravy's link.

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by DGM

The information you seek is here including a map. In the future may I suggest you try a little harder. This is from Gravy's link.

Way to assume I 'didn't try hard' to begin with. I've looked at all that information. I have not posted on this issue because I wanted to read all the information I could about it before bringing it up.

I've already read all of Gravy's posted links, and they did not address my concerns, such as....

Why does the color of the 'fireball' not match any aircraft fire I have ever seen?
I've looked at hundreds of video's and pictures and not one airplane crash had gray smoke. Not one. All of them were pitch black.

So you try hard. Try finding one that looks anything like flight 93. I've tried for days to find one. Then go look pictures and video's of war where bombs are being dropped and then you'll see gray smoke. (depending upon what is hit)

It does not explain how early video showed the patch of burnt trees was very small, and showed fire crews at the scene. How did the area of burnt trees grow like they did while fire fighters were already there and there were no more spot fires?

Is the below correct? If so, why did none of these warnings signal according to the FDR information?
According to the FDR, the ‘Sink Rate’ warning did not activate.
Terrain - Did not activate
Too Low Terain - Did not activate
Terrain Ahead Pull Up - Did not activate
Ground Prox Warning - Did not activate
GPWC Failure - Did not activate. Again, this seems to indicate that the GPWC on board UA93 was functioning throughout the flight.

The reason I want to flight path is to see the planes direction of inertia to explain how an engine ended up half a mile from the impact point, and also how debris ended up 8 miles away.
Shoot debris up into the air a quarter mile if you want, and the debris will not go eight miles in a reported wind of 9mph. That does not add up.
Clothing and a books five and six miles away? How?
A 9mph wind would not blow a feather more than a few hundred feet.

It does not make sense.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Way to assume I 'didn't try hard' to begin with. I've looked at all that information. I have not posted on this issue because I wanted to read all the information I could about it before bringing it up.

I've already read all of Gravy's posted links, and they did not address my concerns, such as....

Why does the color of the 'fireball' not match any aircraft fire I have ever seen?
I've looked at hundreds of video's and pictures and not one airplane crash had gray smoke. Not one. All of them were pitch black.

So you try hard. Try finding one that looks anything like flight 93. I've tried for days to find one. Then go look pictures and video's of war where bombs are being dropped and then you'll see gray smoke. (depending upon what is hit)

It does not explain how early video showed the patch of burnt trees was very small, and showed fire crews at the scene. How did the area of burnt trees grow like they did while fire fighters were already there and there were no more spot fires?

Is the below correct? If so, why did none of these warnings signal according to the FDR information?
According to the FDR, the ‘Sink Rate’ warning did not activate.
Terrain - Did not activate
Too Low Terain - Did not activate
Terrain Ahead Pull Up - Did not activate
Ground Prox Warning - Did not activate
GPWC Failure - Did not activate. Again, this seems to indicate that the GPWC on board UA93 was functioning throughout the flight.

The reason I want to flight path is to see the planes direction of inertia to explain how an engine ended up half a mile from the impact point, and also how debris ended up 8 miles away.
Shoot debris up into the air a quarter mile if you want, and the debris will not go eight miles in a reported wind of 9mph. That does not add up.
Clothing and a books five and six miles away? How?
A 9mph wind would not blow a feather more than a few hundred feet.

It does not make sense.

I meant no offense but the type of questions you ask go way beyond the normal curiosity. This means that you would likely need to do more in depth research then would be expected. Maybe a FIOA to the NTSB.

Personally with 95% of the aircraft recovered and all the rest of the evidence, Including IDing all the bodys I see no point. There's always going to be differences from one instance to another.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I've looked at hundreds of video's and pictures and not one airplane crash had gray smoke. Not one. All of them were pitch black.

I think my question from before applies again:

How many of those crashes involved a high speed plunge at a steep angle into the ground? I'm guessing not many. Most air crashes involve something going wrong on takeoff or on approach for landing, or CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) type of accidents.

[lapman]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

From the imprint in the ground, it is clear that the plane hit up-side down. Notice the way that the dirt in front of the crater is pushed up. This is a clear indication that the plane was moving in that direction. The faintness of the tail imprint is significant in that it would seem to me to indicate that it was already begining to separate from the rest of the aircraft when it hit. Thus, it would easily have been catapulted into the woods, where it was allegedly found. The same could be said of various fuselage parts. It is quite likely that this was also when some of the lighter contents such as paper items were catapulted into the air, and perhaps kept there by the heat of the deflagrating fuel and the thermal updraft it created.

http://killtown.911review.org/images...msnbc-tail.jpg

The one thing that CTers claim about that photo is that the wings are at the top of the crater near the tail and not at the bottom of the crater where you'd expect the wings to be. What they forget is that when an airplane is inverted, it no longer has lift unless you trim the aircraft to counteract the negative lift. That would not have been the case with flt 93. Hence the path the plane would have been traveling would have been at an angle and not straight into the ground.

[lapman]

duplicate post. Sorry.

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by lapman

The one thing that CTers claim about that photo is that the wings are at the top of the crater near the tail and not at the bottom of the crater where you'd expect the wings to be. What they forget is that when an airplane is inverted, it no longer has lift unless you trim the aircraft to counteract the negative lift. That would not have been the case with flt 93. Hence the path the plane would have been traveling would have been at an angle and not straight into the ground.

From the FDR I believe the plane was at a 40° angle. But that does not change my issues at all.

Answer honestly....How high up would you have to take a shirt into the air to make it travel 5 to 8 miles in a 9mph wind? How high for a book?
There is no way they could have, and I think the relative quiet that has taken over this thread as one of two things. 1) People are looking into this themselves (Which I hope is the case) or 2) They can come up with no explanation and either will choose to ignore this, or cannot say anything because they know it's right but are sticking to their guns.

With regard to the NTSB, why would I need a FOIA request from them?
Can they address anything that I've said? No.
The only thing they 'may' be able to answer is why the aircraft alarms did not work.

The 'fireball'. I do not highlight 'fireball' to be a jerk, I do it because it does not appear to be a ball of fire. There is no fire there.
But, how does the plane burying itself change the chemical composition of the jet fuel and make it burn a different color?

95% of the plane was recovered? Why are parts of it reported to be at an under ground security storage facility?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aou6c2MOmg
2:37 mark if you're impatient.

There is something wrong, and I believe I have shown enough to highlight that fact. And unlike many of you may be thinking, I am not saying this is 'proof that there is a conspiracy by the NWO blah, blah,blah.)

All I am doing is showing what is causing me problems. And I am sure others are realizing that there is indeed a problem. Too much does not add up here.

[DGM]

Quote:

95% of the plane was recovered? Why are parts of it reported to be at an under ground security storage facility?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aou6c2MOmg
2:37 mark if you're impatient.

That claim is wrong. Iron mountain has boxes of mementos from the crash site left by visitors. The airline has the plane.

[DGM]

Quote:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...52#post2756652

Read here.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

From the FDR I believe the plane was at a 40° angle.

No. Here's what Gravy posted earlier:

Originally Posted by Gravy

11. Pitch angle - 40 deg down
12. Airspeed - 500 kts
13. Heading - 180 deg
14. Roll angle - 150 deg right
15. AoA - 20 deg negative

The pitch angle is 40°. But you forgot to include the roll angle - that was 150°. An aircraft flying straight and level has a 0° roll angle, i.e. the wings are parallel to the ground. A 90° roll angle means the wings are perpendicular to the ground. A 180° roll angle means the aircraft is inverted. Flight 93 had a roll angle of 150° meaning it was almost inverted while it was diving downwards at a 40° angle.

[lapman]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

From the FDR I believe the plane was at a 40° angle. But that does not change my issues at all.

Yes the plane was at a 40 degree angle. However, that doesn't mean it was traveling a 40 degree path.

Quote:

Answer honestly....How high up would you have to take a shirt into the air to make it travel 5 to 8 miles in a 9mph wind? How high for a book?

Pretty high. The smoke cloud looks like it was several hundred feet high. That would pretty much do it.

Quote:

There is no way they could have, and I think the relative quiet that has taken over this thread as one of two things. 1) People are looking into this themselves (Which I hope is the case) or 2) They can come up with no explanation and either will choose to ignore this, or cannot say anything because they know it's right but are sticking to their guns.

Or maybe they are working, going pee, eating dinner, have a life off of this board, etc.

Quote:

With regard to the NTSB, why would I need a FOIA request from them?
Can they address anything that I've said? No.
The only thing they 'may' be able to answer is why the aircraft alarms did not work.

Remember that they are working on behalf of the FBI. So the FBI will state how much info they can release without a FOIA request.

Quote:

The 'fireball'. I do not highlight 'fireball' to be a jerk, I do it because it does not appear to be a ball of fire. There is no fire there.
But, how does the plane burying itself change the chemical composition of the jet fuel and make it burn a different color?

Where is the pic of the said fireball?

Quote:

95% of the plane was recovered? Why are parts of it reported to be at an under ground security storage facility?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aou6c2MOmg
2:37 mark if you're impatient.

The reports are wrong. Only memorabilia from the site is stored at Iron Mountain. Please do further research beyond a YouTube video.

Quote:

There is something wrong, and I believe I have shown enough to highlight that fact. And unlike many of you may be thinking, I am not saying this is 'proof that there is a conspiracy by the NWO blah, blah,blah.)

All I am doing is showing what is causing me problems. And I am sure others are realizing that there is indeed a problem. Too much does not add up here.

If you really do the research, you'll find that a lot more adds up than you think.

[DGM]

Quote:

Answer honestly....How high up would you have to take a shirt into the air to make it travel 5 to 8 miles in a 9mph wind? How high for a book?

Book? I read piece of a bank statement. Wind going over a hill, small piece of paper,not too surprising to me.

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by DGM

That claim is wrong. Iron mountain has boxes of mementos from the crash site left by visitors. The airline has the plane.

Under your forum name it says 'Critical Thinker'.
Now, seriously, why would they be storing 'mementos from visitors' in one of the most secure places on earth? Should they be hidden away, or shown in a museum? Come on, bro.

Even if you were right, it does not change the issues I've raised.

To add to the debris topic....clothing and books up to 6 miles away.
Was it clothing the people were wearing or clothing from suitcases?
Let us say suitcases for the sake of argument. Think about the impact at a 40° angle and the plane burying itself. So completely that it did not result in a massive fire do to most of the fuel going into the ground. (Inertia)

Now use the picture of the 'fireball' that I showed earlier. Does that appear to be a blast capable to reverse inertia of the plane and blow out clothing and books five miles away? No. Not even close. And I find it very difficult to believe anyone could believe it.
We are not talking about light debris here. And as reported, people were turning in bags of debris from 5-8 miles away.

So if it is in fact impossible to have happened, then why and how did it happen?
Again...there is a problem with the story, and not a minor one.

[Corsair 115]

1) Are you going to address the question I asked regarding the nature of the aircraft accidents you have seen photos of?

2) Do you accept that the aircraft was nearly inverted at the time of impact, as lapman has stated?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

We are not talking about light debris here. And as reported, people were turning in bags of debris from 5-8 miles away.

Important clarification: was the debris located 5-8 miles away by road or by straight line, i.e. as the crow files, from the impact site?

Some CTist claims of debris being found as much as eight miles away erroneously use the ground distance by road from the impact site; the actual distance when measured in a straight line was less than two miles.

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by DGM

Book? I read piece of a bank statement. Wind going over a hill, small piece of paper,not too surprising to me.

http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20...somersetp3.asp


You believe the 'fireball' picture had enough force to do that? I'm sorry, but that made me LOL for real.
Don't forget that it had to overcome the inertia of the plane doing 500+mph, but also had to come out of the ground.

I'd bet 5,000 bucks that you could launch a shirt with ten times that force and it would not come close to traveling 2 miles.

[DGM]

Quote:

Under your forum name it says 'Critical Thinker'.
Now, seriously, why would they be storing 'mementos from visitors' in one of the most secure places on earth? Should they be hidden away, or shown in a museum? Come on, bro.

Lots of things are stored there. It's a private company devoted to secure storage. Mostly documents and data.(google: Iron mountain they have a web site.) The site is going to be a memorial. The victims family however can view the articles and visit the site any time they wish. Look up flight 93 memorial act.

[DGM]

Quote:

We are not talking about light debris here. And as reported, people were turning in bags of debris from 5-8 miles away.

You misread that. They were going around with bags picking up debris.

The light stuff was found far away. Read carefully the don't say the books a stuff was found that far away.

[DGM]

So DA:

What do you think happened?

[lapman]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20...somersetp3.asp


You believe the 'fireball' picture had enough force to do that? I'm sorry, but that made me LOL for real.
Don't forget that it had to overcome the inertia of the plane doing 500+mph, but also had to come out of the ground.

I'd bet 5,000 bucks that you could launch a shirt with ten times that force and it would not come close to traveling 2 miles.

Well, since that is not a "fireball" picture, we cannot tell how big the fireball really was. However, inertia would have been stopped in microseconds after hitting the ground. So your inertia reasoning is faulty. The resulting explosion could have easily thrown the debris to an altitude where the winds were far stronger than 9mph. Do you have a winds aloft report for that day? Have you ever seen low level clouds traveling at a pretty good speed even though you don't feel any wind on the ground?

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20...somersetp3.asp

You believe the 'fireball' picture had enough force to do that?

1) Your linked news article mentions six miles, but it does not mention whether that distance was measured by road or by straight line from the crash site. This difference is very important due to the winding nature of the road used to get to the crash site

2) Explosions can hurl debris considerable distances.

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by DGM

So DA:

What do you think happened?

You tell me.
Don't try to paint me into a corner. Evidence is all that matters, right?


Witnesses say they heard the plane fly over (Indian Lake), felt their building AT THE DOCK shake. The debris evidence also supports the plane flying over Indian Lake AND that plane was falling apart. This debris would have taken 15-20 minutes to float at 10mph and then descend on Indian Lake from the main crash crater. The testimony and evidence do not support the NTSB story that the debris floated from the main crash site."
Why? Because they saw the debris raining down after the impact, and still coming down before they left the lake.

Problematic.

[leftysergeant]

The fuselage appears to have been breaking up before most of the aft section could follow the nose into the ground. This would have spread some luggage and small items into the air. The up-draft created by the fireball would have lifted some of it even farther.

The smoke at the fire scene would have been different colors depending on what was burning. Natural cover burns with brown, white, or grey smoke, depending on moisture (damp wood produces a lot of brown smoke) the heat of the fire and the wind. A well-ventillated fire produces mostly white smoke and it looks bluish if dispersed by the wind.

Some of the vapors coming out of the crater are steam, some may be vegetation burning in the crater.

Killtown makes a great deal in his "debunking" of the famous smoke cloud picture of the fact that the smoke appears bluish-grey. This has to do with lighting and dispersal and mixing with air. It has been my experience that a jet fuel fire produces smoke that appears blacker at the scene than it does when blown several miles away, and on a sunny day, it appears more bluish.

Bear in mind that there is no naturally-occuring totally black pigment.

In the attachment below, the fuselage clearly has made a tunnel into the ground, pushing the soil ahead of it, and has been partly back-filled with soil. The photo was taken at an angle a bit flatter than that at which the fuselage penetrated, as can be seen in that the whole cross-section cannot be seen above the ground level. So the angle of penetration would be somewhere between the angle of the camera and the perpendicular. Don't ask me to calculate it. I am dyscalculic.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

This debris would have taken 15-20 minutes to float at 10mph and then descend on Indian Lake from the main crash crater.

You still have yet to say whether the problematic distances you keep mentioning are based on ground travel by road or by straight line measurement.

The evidence is mounting that DA seems to be deliberately ignoring my posts.

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

{snippety snip}

Is the below correct? If so, why did none of these warnings signal according to the FDR information?
According to the FDR, the ‘Sink Rate’ warning did not activate.
Terrain - Did not activate
Too Low Terain - Did not activate
Terrain Ahead Pull Up - Did not activate
Ground Prox Warning - Did not activate
GPWC Failure - Did not activate. Again, this seems to indicate that the GPWC on board UA93 was functioning throughout the flight.

The reason I want to flight path is to see the planes direction of inertia to explain how an engine ended up half a mile from the impact point, and also how debris ended up 8 miles away.
Shoot debris up into the air a quarter mile if you want, and the debris will not go eight miles in a reported wind of 9mph. That does not add up.
Clothing and a books five and six miles away? How?
A 9mph wind would not blow a feather more than a few hundred feet.

It does not make sense.

Actually, it kinda does. I'll explain:

First thing we need to know is whether or not N591UA had Enhanced GPWS. It was a relatively new airframe, so it likely came installed from Boeing and even if it didn't - UA probably modified it for EGPWS. The second thing we need to know was whether or not the FDAU(Flight Data Aquisition Unit) had inputs for EGPWS modes activation, which would've been sent on the the FDR for recording.

You see, EGPWS, unlike regular old GPWS uses GPS and a database of terrain below to paint a ground floor around the airplane. The ground elevation data, or terrain database, is stored inside the EGPWS computer. True altitude, or absolute altitude, can either come from the GPS receiver, Air Data Computer, or the Radio Altimeter.

Now a bit about regular old GPWS. First generation GPWS(pre GPS) relied heavily on the radio altimeter data for mode activation. Sink rate, terrain and pull up modes needed the radalt to be "alive" and at a certain trigger altitude for mode activation(ie "terrain" may sound when the airplane was below 800' radio altitude, not in landing configuration{gear and flaps} and "sink rate" would sound below 1000' at RoDs of greater than 2000 feet/min). But there is a limitation to using the Radalt for GPWS, the airplane basically needs to be flying straight and level for the instrument to work. The radalt antennae are on the bottom of the airplane and the system works by bouncing microwaves at the ground and calculatring the round trip time, giving accurate altitude(to the foot). However, if the airplane is above 2500' -or - is in a steep bank(or is upside down), the radalt will flag and the GPWS will basically be inoperative.

Now even if ithe airplane did have EGPWS, the modes you describe above would still be inactive, only those extra EGPWS modes would sound the aural and visual flight deck warning. Now, I'll have to look at John Cronos UA93 FDR plots to find out if the EGPWS modes are even present. If they are I'd bet a paycheck that at least one was active.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Way to assume I 'didn't try hard' to begin with. I've looked at all that information. I have not posted on this issue because I wanted to read all the information I could about it before bringing it up.

DA, in all honesty your posts have a decidedly conspiracist tone, and I think people might be forgiven for suspecting you of being a closet "Truther." I would also point out that it's not unknown for conspiracists to show up at a forum frequented by debunkers, and initially pretend to be "just asking questions." If you wish not to be taken for a "Truther," I respectfully suggest that you might want to adopt a less strident, defensive, and incredulous tone in your questions.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Why does the color of the 'fireball' not match any aircraft fire I have ever seen?
I've looked at hundreds of video's and pictures and not one airplane crash had gray smoke. Not one. All of them were pitch black.

So you try hard. Try finding one that looks anything like flight 93. I've tried for days to find one. Then go look pictures and video's of war where bombs are being dropped and then you'll see gray smoke. (depending upon what is hit)

Concorde crash, Paris, France, 25 July 2000


Fokker F27 crash, Multon, Pakistan, 10 July 2006


Tu-154 crash, Sukha Balka, Ukraine, 22 August 2006


Boeing 737 crash, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 7 March 2007

Frankly, DA, your credibility meter just pegged off-scale low. It took me only a few minutes to find these using Google. If you wish to be taken seriously, I'd suggest some humility is in order.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

It does not explain how early video showed the patch of burnt trees was very small, and showed fire crews at the scene. How did the area of burnt trees grow like they did while fire fighters were already there and there were no more spot fires?

Please provide some sources for these allegedly anomalous photos and videos.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Is the below correct? If so, why did none of these warnings signal according to the FDR information?
According to the FDR, the ‘Sink Rate’ warning did not activate.
Terrain - Did not activate
Too Low Terain - Did not activate
Terrain Ahead Pull Up - Did not activate
Ground Prox Warning - Did not activate
GPWC Failure - Did not activate. Again, this seems to indicate that the GPWC on board UA93 was functioning throughout the flight.

These warnings are triggered by data from the radar altimeter, which does not function when the aircraft is inverted, or is at a high pitch or roll angle.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

The reason I want to flight path is to see the planes direction of inertia to explain how an engine ended up half a mile from the impact point, and also how debris ended up 8 miles away.
Shoot debris up into the air a quarter mile if you want, and the debris will not go eight miles in a reported wind of 9mph. That does not add up.
Clothing and a books five and six miles away? How?
A 9mph wind would not blow a feather more than a few hundred feet.

From a WTAE News article:

Quote:

WTAE's Jim Parsons reported Wednesday that debris had been found miles off-site and removed by non-search party members. [FBI spokesman Bill] Crowley confirmed that debris was found in New Baltimore, Pa., which is 8 miles away from the crash scene, as well as Indian Lake, which is 2 1/2 miles away from the crash scene.

NTSB officials said the debris in New Baltimore is probably from the crash, according to Crowley.

The debris found in New Baltimore include paper and nylon, Crowley said. He said that the items are lightweight and can easily be carried by wind. At the time of the crash, there was wind speed of 9 knots per hour [sic] heading to the southeast, where both Indian Lake and New Baltimore are located.[emphasis added]

Please give sources for the claims that the items were actually "books and clothing."

Also, from Salon.com's "Ask the pilot" column:

Quote:

High-energy impacts can eject fragments over startlingly long distances. It's also quite probable that the violent, high-speed maneuvers induced by the skyjackers caused one or both of the plane's engines to detach and/or partial breakup of the main structure. Comparatively benign plummets of aircraft in the past have resulted in the separation of engines, control surfaces and even entire wings. Debris can be carried aloft for many miles by the wind. And had Flight 93 been blown up with a missile, destruction of the airframe would not have been as complete, with portions falling to earth at a lower, less disintegrative velocity.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

It does not make sense.

Common sense can often be misleading.

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

You still have yet to say whether the problematic distances you keep mentioning are based on ground travel by road or by straight line measurement.
The evidence is mounting that DA seems to be deliberately ignoring my posts.

Corsair, why would you think I needed to avoid your question or would even try to?
It is a straight line point to point on a map. So explain to me how the explosion sent debris two and a half miles in the matter of seconds.
Beyond problematic, it is complete BS.


So, given the things put out so far is that a jet explosion for some reason was not black. People saying it changes colors is not proof. Show me case of it.
And of course I will not accept a site that someone can edit a picture and upload it to. I've looked at almost 400 plane crashes....all had black smoke. All of them. I'm still looking.

The explosion was strong enough to send debris 8 miles away, some 2.5 miles in the matter of seconds, but was not great enough to cause more ground damage? Use some logic here.
And leftysergeant, do not put up posts of picks that are taken after they have been digging, that is not honest representation of facts.