Flight 93 At 9-11 Debunker
Our buddy 9-11 Debunker has been busy working on the Flight 93 conspiracy theories. As usual, he's covering just this one aspect, following up on his superb Pentagon work. I particularly like his analysis of the shoot down theory here.
Let me do a little work for conspiracy theorists who are always strangely hesitant to formulate theories around the available evidence. You've got debris scattered in an odd manner and not nearly as wide as you would expect for a plane supposedly brought down by an explosive. You've got an engine a few hundred yards away from the crash site. There's only one shoot-down scenario that satisfies these details: a missile hit the plane such that it knocked off one of the engines, leaving the majority of the plane intact, thus the lack of debris. This also explains why the engine was so far away from the original crash site and is, in my opinion, the only realistic explanation.
The only problem is that this explanation actually isn't realistic at all. Let's not forget about the laws of physics! If the engine fell off while the plane was in the midst of its flight, the engine would start plummeting directly to the ground with nothing to slow its downward velocity. A plane, however, would still have its wings, so even if it had no engines propelling it forward, the wings would slow down its downward velocity. The engine would hit the ground first, BEHIND the airplane. However, we can see that it landed in FRONT of the airplane (Flight 93 was moving south when it crashed)...how could that have happened?
Solid analysis!
posted by Pat @ 7:10 AM
53 comments
53 Comments:
Also, congratulations to Ronald Wieck for deftly drawing out the morons at 911Blogger.com to display their hopeless ignorance and irrationality in the face of reason.
Great effort, Ron.
Maybe I should invite them to diagnose and treat patients at my clinic. I mean they think they can arrive at a legitimate conclusion wrt crash analysis without access to any real facts, and without any training in said area of knowledge, so why not. I bet my patients would like that...NOT!
TAM
"1. Objects with huge amounts of momentum stop immediately without any outside force acting on them and then fall straight down."
He never said it would fall straight down, he said that it would have hit the ground before the spot where the plane hit it.
Q - what had more momentom, the plane or the 'shot off' engine?
Goddam Lexus, my ass! I was promised a renewal of my Playboy subscription and forty-five bucks and I still haven't seen squat.
Hey, just me, you're priceless! There is a home for you at 911blogger.com. Say hello to your intellectual peers, Erin and Jenny, for me.
if fact, say, "Well looks like KT grew some balls: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2030
Im starting to like Killtown!
Just Me said... wrote:
1. Objects with huge amounts of momentum stop immediately without any outside force acting on them and then fall straight down.
Straw man, and a bit of a silly contention. Why would you ever expect the momentum of a single engine to be larger than the entirety of the rest of the plane if both bodies were coalesced prior to separation?
A bit of a better explanation for what I just said:
It's somewhat appropriate, if occasionally misleading, to suggest that an object with horizontal momentum is nonetheless moving 'directly' to the ground, in order to mean that there's little impediment to the object's vertical velocity, especially since the horizontal component of momentum doesn't influence the vertical. I'd suggest it isn't misleading in this instance because 9-11 Debunker clarifies over the next couple of sentences what he means by using the term.
You know, I initially thought that Pat was being sarcastic with the "solid analysis" line....but seeing the way you're all attacking "justme", I'm starting to think he may have been serious. So I'll go ahead and tear apart this guy's article:
You've got debris scattered in an odd manner and not nearly as wide as you would expect for a plane supposedly brought down by an explosive.
Actually, depending on how it was hit and how it was flying, an exploding plane might leave a very wide OR very narrow field of debris. There's a bunch of factors that play a part in how it lands. He compares Flight 93's debris field to the one of TWA 800, however, TWA 800 blew up at 14,000 feet, whereas 93 would have been much lower. I shouldn't have to explain how height affects the spread of debris.
There's only one shoot-down scenario that satisfies these details: a missile hit the plane such that it knocked off one of the engines, leaving the majority of the plane intact, thus the lack of debris.
Well, if the "majority of the plane" is intact, there wouldn't be a "lack of debris". Not sure where he's going with that.
Let's not forget about the laws of physics! If the engine fell off while the plane was in the midst of its flight, the engine would start plummeting directly to the ground with nothing to slow its downward velocity. A plane, however, would still have its wings, so even if it had no engines propelling it forward, the wings would slow down its downward velocity.
A missile takes off an engine, but leaves the wing intact? .....right. More likely the strike would also blow off a wing, causing the aircraft to go into a spin. Incidentally this would also increase the air-resistance of the aircraft - a 767 travelling sideways through the air is not very aerodynamic. While there's no real way to predict exactly where the parts would land, it's safe to say that there's no freakin' way that the engine would simply plummet downwards while the aircraft sailed on.
The engine would hit the ground first, BEHIND the airplane.
Not necessarily. It depends on which of the two falling object created the most air-resistance relative to it's weight. Also the control surfaces of the aircraft could make a big difference depending on what the pilot was doing at that point in time.
Anyway, the entire article is full of mistakes and inconsistencies. In fact, when I initially skimmed it, I thought that this guy was a CTer. Ofcourse, the fact that he ends one of his articles by saying that 93 landed at Shanksville doesn't help either, but the main reason I got that impression was because of the poor quality of some of his reasoning. I hate to pick on someone who's fighting against CTs, but...well, there it is. A lot of his research is well done, but the parts of his articles where he tries to be scientific....no.
Alex, if the wing was shot off too, it would have been obvious--lots of wing wreckage on the ground, not in it. His point about the engine dropping straight down may be poorly phrased (it confused me the first time I read it), but in relative terms he's right--the engine would drop fairly quickly (while still maintaining forward momentum), while the plane would glide at least for awhile.
The odds of shooting off an engine without destroying the wing are so astronomically low that they're basically non-existent. You couldn't do it with a missile, that's for sure, you'd have to do it with the cannons. Even then you'd probably blow apart the engine and scatter the pieces all over the place.
The whole premise makes no sense. Sure, if some sniper-ninja-commando rappelled out of a stealth bomber, and chopped off the engine with his toenail clippers, then yes, the plane could have continue coasting and the engine would have fallen behind it. Remind me again why anyone's bothering to consider such a silly scenario?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think there's a serious misunderstanding that's spiraling out of control here...
The 9/11 Debunker Guide isn't a CT site, nor is the author a CT.
As to the part quoted in this post, he's trying to debunk the "Flight 93 was shot down" claims by coming up with most realistic scenario for that claim, then showing even that doesn't fit the evidence we see.
If the engine fell off while the plane was in the midst of its flight, the engine would start plummeting directly to the ground with nothing to slow its downward velocity.
Did this scholar forget the momentum of the plane in regards to the engine? Wouldn't the engine continue traveling the same speed as the plane until the force of gravity took effect?
Of course, which explains why the engine was found so far away. How did it get there? Flight 93 was shot down or blown up from within.
Proof SD not opinion or conjecture
Hey Steve...would a jet nose diving into the ground cause the engine to travel several miles away? Nope. What other explanation is there?
I asked you to back up your mindless babble with facts not your usual lame BS. All you do is give your opinion ot that of some other whaks
Tell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators.
Which crashes did you investigate?
Hey Stevew, feel free to back up your position with physics, including how a jet nose diving into the ground can distribute debris and body parts in a lake several miles away.
So far a nose dive crash and the OS cannot account for such behavior.
So deal with it..it was either shot down or blown up from the inside.
I can handle a shoot down which is what should have happened across the board. Explosives on a plane however bring up some rather interesting questions regarding airline security measures.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Does anyone have any video or links of the thick smoke and burning debris of the site or did the ground act as an oxygen depleter and remove the air from the burning wreckage?
Oh Stevew, btw, is there any airline crash investigator that has explained how debris traveled miles away from a nose dive crash?
I will take the word of dozens of hard working experts over your douchebag conjecture anyday SD.
And Lying, what did those experts say about debris found miles away and body parts washed up on the shore from the lake? Have they addressed that yet? Or have they avoided that issue like the plague?
I suspect the ground acted as a huge rubber spring board bouncing those sorry souls and wreckeage up up and away and back down miles away. Yep and the beer commercial showing the same type of physics proves it could happen.
Shot down or blown up from within is the only explanation to explain that situation. Deal with it.
Still tapdancing, don't try and answer the questions with questions.
I asked you to back up your mindless babble with facts not your usual lame BS. All you do is give your opinion ot that of some other whaks
Tell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators.
Which crashes did you investigate?
He reminds me so much of PDoh....
Anyway:
Hey Stevew, feel free to back up your position with physics, including how a jet nose diving into the ground can distribute debris and body parts in a lake several miles away.
I once pulled over on the highway to assist with an 80 car pileup that had occurred in the opposite lanes. I remember looking around and seeing all sorts of components strewn over the road, a good 100 meters away from the actual crash. I suppose those cars must have been "blown up internally" too, right?
And just because I know exactly what your (typically idiotic) response will be, I'll tell you to consider the speed/momentum differences, as well as angle of impact, before trying the "100 meters isn't several miles" response.
SD wrote: "Hey Steve...would a jet nose diving into the ground cause the engine to travel several miles away?"
It wasn't found "miles away", SD...
http://911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html
SD seems to think that there will be a lot of wreakage left after the plane hits the ground at 580+. The have no clue of the forces involved. Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. 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." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.
Just Me wrote: "So, while I'm glad that he's not part of the crazy clan who think the government killed 3000 of its own citizens, bad physics is bad physics and eventually, someone will call you on it. So next time, before you call me stupid (cough...pomeroo...cough, cough) make sure you can intelligently argue your point, because I can guarun-damn-tee you that I will be able to with my point."
The point in the indignant replies to your comment is that you grossly misrepresented the author's argument by implying that he claimed the engine would immediately drop straight to the ground.
He did not.
It's cliché, but don't act like your shit doesn't stink.
Sorry, just me, I'm not sold.
"The only problem is that this explanation actually isn't realistic at all."
Your three objections are strawmen.
1)He is NOT saying that the engine would fall straight down. Why put words in his mouth?
2 and 3) Incoherent. What are you driving at?
He was trying to be funny. Leave the guy alone. He's right, the article's pretty bad. So he read the article, misinterpreted what the author meant to say, and then made fun of him for it. And then YOU took HIS comments the wrong way :)
Just Me-Swing Dangler - You're just annoying as hell because you're so ignorant that you don't even realize that you are. If you're in an open field on a windy day light objects can be blown for miles...like a plastic shopping bags, paper...maybe thin sheets of aluminum from a plane crash...that doesn't mean it was blown up.
Alright Professor, get an aluminum can, flatten it, throw it up in a wind day and see how many fucking miles it blows. Your done.
Sure, Just what was the wind speed on that day? How far away can body parts be blown by the wind? And don't you think there might be say some wooded areas that might stop that shit from blowing 6-8 miles away? Again remind me of my stupidity and I will shove your fucking comments right back in your mouth. Get smarter bitch before you try to argue with me.
Lets use your nose dive into the ground plane and explain the following:
""A second debris field was around Indian Lake about 3 miles from the crash scene. Some debris was in the lake and some was adjacent to the lake. "More debris from the plane was found in New Baltimore, some 8 miles away from the crash. "State police and the FBI initially said they didn't want to speculate whether the debris was from the crash, or if the plane could have broken up in midair." 1
Additionally, Flight 93's debris field covered anywhere from three to six miles and, as CNN reported, pieces of the plane were found six to eight miles from the main impact area: (It bounced there theory"Authorities also said another debris site had been cordoned off six to eight miles away from the original crash debris site." 2
State police Maj. Lyle Szupinka said investigators also will be searching a pond behind the crash site looking for the other recorder Fuck, now rubberized bouncing black boxes and other debris. If necessary, divers may be brought in to assist search teams, or the pond may be drained, he said.
Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site."
"It appears to be the whole engine," he added.
Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a "briefcase." 1. 'Black box' from Pennsylvania crash found, CNN.com, 9/13/01
2. FBI: Early probe results show 18 hijackers took part, CNN.com, 9/13/01 [
3. Authorities deny Flight 93 was shot down by F-16, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/14/01
Now tell me again about the wind that blew shit miles away?
Again, shot down or blown up. You can't have it any other way.
SteveW-What qualifications do you bring to the table to discuss the issue.None. I'm using local authorities and the mainstream media, and some common sense.
Alex-your new catch phrase should be 'elementary my dear watson' as it fits your analogy every fuckin' time.
Besides, what is the big deal if it were shot down or blown up? Or are most of you still trying to support the liars in the Bush Administration? Or are you so emotionally attached to Flight 93 the Movie?
In summary, the wind, one was not strong enough to blow anything miles away from the crash scene, let alone pieces of a jet plane. Examine all the photographs from the trial and right after the crash for the necessary wind storm that must have took place to make the OS true. The debris field matches a shoot down or break up in mid flight. And to my knowledge the ground was soft enough from former mining that it absorbed most of the plane anyway, correct?
So again, all of you physics professors on here please explain why there were multiple debris fields 6 to 8 miles away from a god dam nose dive crash?
Oh and Alex, think Space Shuttle break up in midflight, Sherlock.
Still tapdancing, don't try and answer the questions with questions.
I asked you to back up your mindless babble with facts not your usual lame BS. All you do is give your opinion ot that of some other whaks
Tell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators.
Which crashes did you investigate?
I am far more qualified than you are. Why don't you answer the questions? Why don't you give your qualifications instead of the same mindless babble that you always post?
The only thing you are good for is how to say nothing in 500 words
Here is more evidence of that heavy wind storm that blew debris over a mountain ridge:
http://www.shanksvillememorial.com/
endofserenity.html
SteveW-Far more qualified? In what way?
Fact-9 knot wind speed according to the NTSB. Not sustainable winds mind you. 9 knots = 10.357015 miles
Fact-Debris 8 miles away over ridges.
Fact-Wind gusts at that speed will not blow debris mentioned by the MSM that far away or even miles away, including human remains. Start at the ground and then work backwards and I will think you will find the nosedive doesn't allow for such behavior.
Fact-You don't have to have a job investigating accdidents to come to the conclusion that 93 was shot down or began to break up in mid flight.
Fact-eyewitness descriptions match a shot down/break up scenario.
Fact-debris fields match a shot down /break up scenario not a nose dive into the ground crash.
Fact-photos do not support the wind theory, nor do any eyewitness accounts.
Fact-Stevew, no mindless babble.
Shot down or break up in mid-flight, you can't have it any other way. Physics for god's sakes won't allow it. And unless your a physics professor, you are not qualified to debunk the shoot down/break up theory.
What is the big deal anyway if it were shot down. Hell you would think you would be all over that because the Air Force would be doing its job?
Now tell me Stevew, where is that mindless babble you keep spewing and please list your proof of your qualifications?
I would encourage you to read Chapter 1, Air Disasters and Government Corruption from Rodney Stich, at which point the author fought to expose and halt the misconduct.
Still tapdancing, don't try and answer the questions with questions.
Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, says no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater--not 6 miles--easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest--toward Indian Lake.
First of all, that wind direction and speed makes it impossible that pieces of paper could drift from the crash site near Buckstown Road to the waters and shore of Indian Lake. Eyewitnesses reported at the time that they saw crash debris fall upon the lake "a few moments" after hearing an explosion. Rather than "a few moments," the cloud of "confetti" would have taken 13.2 minutes to arrive from the crash site — even if the wind direction had been right. And, that is assuming that the papers could have first climbed over the hill, and then their flight could have survived the downdraft caused by the hot air cooling after it crossed the ridge.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kovach/051012
Human Remains- Brant has been taking FBI and ATF agents onto the lake to recover airplane parts and human remains. (AP, 9/13/01)
On Wednesday morning, marina Service Manager John Fleegle found what he figured was a bone, washed up on one of the marina's concrete boat launches. "It was maybe five inches long. It put me in mind of maybe a rib bone,"
Fleegle said. "I called the state police. They contacted the FBI, and
they picked it up." http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914p2.asp Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as
they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more
debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the
point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine. http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp
So the FBI recovers the remains and Wally tells PM that none were recovered. So who is right in this case? The guy picking up the remains or the coroner located back at the morgue sifting through shit?
STEVEW-your tap dancing again, bud. Please list proof of your qualifications, including any physics training you have in the field. Next time, list your source as the Popular Mechanics article instead of typing it as if it were your own. That is academic fraud Mr. Expert in nothing. What proven experience in crash site investigations do you have? Me, I have none and you don't either, so stop relying on the appeal authority argument to discredit my position.
Still tapdancing, don't try and answer the questions with questions.
Tell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators.
Which crashes did you investigate?
There are other sources so whats wrong with PM? I have read a number and they seem consistant. You have no hard facts to back up what you say so as usual you attack the person seems like is not a fact.
You are stil a master at how to say nothing in 500 words
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-4#flight-93-was-shot-down
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_links.html
Dam STEVEW, what question do you want me to answer? I said I've never investigated a crash scene nor have you. You have yet to provide any qualifications that state you have or for that matter are more qualified to speak on the matter than me.
I've listed several eyewitness accounts, provided photographic evidence, and called for a debunking by a physics expert to explain how debris (heavier than paper) can end up 8 miles away.
I've listed several reasons why I believe 93 was shot down or broke up in mid air and yet you provide nothing to make me change my mind.
Let me ask you this Stevew, why do you believe the nose dive crash caused a debris field up to 8 miles away? Is it because someone told you so?
I've provided no hard facts?? WTF are you talking about bro? MSM isn't facutal? The NTSB isn't factual? Pics aren't factual. Man your just reaching now or totally ignoring any evidence I provide.
Again you provide a link to a bunch of other links. Doesn't the FD recorder have what sounds like wind rushing into the cockpit or would that be heavy breathing by the hijackers and/or pilots?
Orignally the FBI didn't want to speculate on the shoot down, which makes the most sense considering the debris field.
Again the debris field itself supports the shoot down/break up theory. If not we woud have more of a concentric type of field with a nose dive crash, not one that falls in a linear fashion.
Stevew, why do you believe the official story on this particular point when the evidence points to a different conclusion? You can't be that hard headed can you?
I've provided no hard facts?? WTF are you talking about bro? MSM isn't facutal? The NTSB isn't factual? Pics aren't factual. Man your just reaching now or totally ignoring any evidence I provide.
Again you provide a link to a bunch of other links. Doesn't the FD recorder have what sounds like wind rushing into the cockpit or would that be heavy breathing by the hijackers and/or pilots?
Orignally the FBI didn't want to speculate on the shoot down, which makes the most sense considering the debris field.
Again the debris field itself supports the shoot down/break up theory. If not we woud have more of a concentric type of field with a nose dive crash, not one that falls in a linear fashion.
Stevew, why do you believe the official story on this particular point when the evidence points to a different conclusion? You can't be that hard headed can you?
Total speculation on your part. I don't think anyone knows for sure, I don't think there has ever been a crash like this so with out bench marks to go from we get a lot of guesses and spec. There is no way to predict exactly what could or would have happened. I dissagree on the debris field, had it been shot down it would have been much different
You take reports and fit them to what you believe, are they right, maybe, maybe not. The bottom line is that the plane was not shot down
Interesting point on the wind speed/direction there Steve. I don't think it would have made a HUGE difference on the scatter of debris, but it would definitely have effected smaller bits of aluminium and things like paper, clothing, wiring, etc. That's the thing, people hear that "parts" were recovered miles away from the site, and they automatically picture huge pieces of bulkhead, or engine components. Really, "Parts" could mean practically anything.
I still don't understand why people bother discussing this shit in the first place though. Even if we accept it was shot down, so what? That's CT logic for you:
Flight 93 was shot down, therefore 9/11 is an inside job!
Flight 77 wasn't shot down, therefore 9/11 is an inside job!
Makes no sense. Why argue semantics with these idiots when their whole premise is flawed?
Well put Alex, some times I can't put things in words. At 580 MPH the plane would carry a shock wave with it that would tend to pull things along with it. When a car passess close at 60 it pulls you quite a bit, the same is true with a large plane except it would knock you ass over tea kettle. Small things could easily get caught up in the breeze
Hey, swing dumpster, I think you're extremely stupid. Start shoving my comments into my mouth. You can begin with another discussion you ran away from.
The conspiracy liars pretend that Flight 93 was shot down. The Air Force confessed its failure to shoot down Flight 93. Most of us don't get it. Why are the liars saying that the Air Force did something right when it has been demonstrated to all but the dishonest simpletons of fantasy movement that the plane crashed?
You know it, I know it, and Osama Bin Laden knows it...all it would take is for there to be a rumor that he says he was framed and Bush was actually behind it all and the MSM would jump all over it. But he's not denying it...that should tell you something.
You don't want to try that line of reasoning with these idiots. Half of them think that Ossama's real name is Ossman, and that he's a CIA spy. It'll drive you batty if you try wading into some of their ultra-insane theories.
"A plane, however, would still have its wings, so even if it had no engines propelling it forward, the wings would slow down its downward velocity. The engine would hit the ground first, BEHIND the airplane. However, we can see that it landed in FRONT of the airplane (Flight 93 was moving south when it crashed)...how could that have happened?"
Facts of physics: The plane, having a much higher drag coeficient
than the engine, would have a steeper parabolic rate of descent.
You should go to class instead of blog.
Just Me-I guess part of the post was directed at you due in large part for attacking my character and knowledge. Just reflecting what is shown I suspect. Bounces off of me and sticks to you type of thing...much like your rubberized ground theory. Uninformed? Hardly.
9 knots versus 10 miles Yes my mistake I thought people on this blog were smart enough to know the difference between mph and distance. You provided the information for them. I errored in assuming readers knew the difference.
Glaringly obvious error. Nope. Bad assumption on my part.
10 miles per hour sustained winds at the time? Nope. Did you debunk the issue. Nope.
So what you are saying then is we don't have a case example where a plane crashed into the ground at high speed? Are you serious about this examination?
TNT explosions of that magnitude can cause debris to scatter up to 8 miles away? MILES JUST ME, MILES!
In CD do we see debris landing miles away? Does military ordinace blown up on site propel debris miles and miles away??
Now Alex throws his 2 cents into it by saying pieces of wire and clothing can hit the ground and bounce back up and land miles away?
Where do you get this logic at?
my guess would be that an impact like that would scatter debris quite a ways. Quite a ways? Sure I agree with you. Miles away? Not a single chance in hell. Why do you ignore this simple physics issue?
And did it ever occur to any of you conspiracy thoery types that the MSM pretty much hates the Bush Administration and would do pretty much anything to bring it down
I would believe this if they opposed the run up to the Iraq war, offered a real investigation into the vote fraud, investigated claims made by the Bush administration regarding WMD's, etc. The media portrays what is fashionable to the public at a particular point in time. Right now, it is 'cool' to bash Bush. Where was the same Bush hating bunch prior to the Iraq war?
What would change my mind?
Show me the calculations that explain how that plane, in nose dive crash, spewed debris up to 8 miles away. Release all of the cockpit recordings, not ones that have missing minutes, etc.
A collection of all the eyewintesses and a rebuttal for ALL of them.
An explanation by officials for the multiple debris fields. Not a comment by an expert who worked on TWA 800. Why do you think the FBI and officials considered a shoot down/break up in the first place? The debris fields.
As Alex would say, elementary my dear Watson.
So now I would just like to know, if you don't believe anyone here can change your might about the crash vs shot down vs blown up from the inside (understandable, being that you don't know the qulifications of any of us), and you don't believe any expert, what will change your mind?
What do you mean I don't believe 'any expert'? At what point did I say that?
What would change my mind?
1. No secondary debris field up to 8 miles away.
2. No parts body or plane at Indian Lake.
3. No eyewitness testimony to the debris fields or the behavior of the plane prior to impact.
4.No 'air rushing into the cockpit' sound on the voice recorders.
5.No eyewitnesses to other military type planes being in the area. Or any planes for that matter considering the 'grounded order' by the FAA.
6.No passenger descriptions of bombs on board any of the planes.
7.Sustained winds of over 20 mphs with gusts up to 80 mph.
SteveW Your using Alex logic again, silly man. So a jet traveling 580 miles will get stuff caught up in it. Well no shit, Sherlock. That is called jet wake. Top Gun made it famous! But in your example the jet is travleling in the air. Remember, we are discussing the behavior of debris after it hit the ground.
PomerooThe conspiracy liars pretend that Flight 93 was shot down. The Air Force confessed its failure to shoot down Flight 93. Most of us don't get it. Why are the liars saying that the Air Force did something right when it has been demonstrated to all but the dishonest simpletons of fantasy movement that the plane crashed?
Well the plane crashed alright, but under what circumstance? A shoot down or blown up from within. Who shot it down? Don't know. Air Force or some other plane. See my point is the OS in this case can't explain the multiple debris fields based upon logic and physics and eyewitness testimony. You cling to the OS as the God's honest truth and ignore everything else. I've proven that the facts show the OS to be false. If the OS is false, that places you and those like you in fantasy land.
LOL It was a simple explanation nothing more but as usual you try and spin it like you do everything else. The plane was not shot down and it is as simple as that and none of your spin and BS will change that
The conspiracy theorists have taken fact out of context and turned it to fiction, they have carefully selected random clippings, quotes etc which were the extreme end of the spectrum not the mean average of the time, meaning it is a very skewed view of what happened. I will give you this SD
You are truley a master at the spin cycle
I really think the following movie and website needs to be debunked. We need to get on this!
The movie "9/11: Press for Truth" should be debunked.
View the trailer for the movie at the following website:
( Running Time: 2 min. 13 sec.)
http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
Watch the entire film at Google Video:
( Running Time: 1 hr. 24 min. 21 sec. )
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&q=9%2F11%3A+Press+for+Truth
The Complete 9/11 Timeline at the Center for Cooperative Research website needs to be debunked as well:
Complete 9/11 Timeline:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Just Me I'm going to end this silly little debate once and for all using the following example of TNT figures and radius of damage.
The equivalant of Approx. 16,000lbs of tnt (figures vary on the source) were used on Hiroshima. According to Yale Law School's Avalon Project, the maxium radius of fire damage was approx. 11,000 feet.
That is equal to approx. 2.083 miles
However, in your scenario, 950 lbs of tnt toss debris up to 8 miles away.
Now explain to me how a jet nose diving into the ground will create more force than an atomic weapon?
You can't, because it can't. Your theory trying to prove the jet was not shot down or broken up in the air is wrong and fallacious.
The debris field proves once and for all that the jet was shot down or broke up in mid air due to explosions.
Now after this little example, what will change your mind?
Did the MSM attack Kerry?
OF course they did! Don't you remember the round of Flip Flop comments and jokes and such? Please!?
Become educated Just Me, and read this fine work:
http://www.mediaed.org/videos/
CommercialismPoliticsAndMedia/
TheMythoftheLiberalMedia
Ok, now, what would be the point of that? It's not like you would understand them, not many people would, so it's not as if you could argue with them even if they did show that the debris should be exactly how it was.
The point is we would have hard science to back up your no shoot down theory. At this point you have nothing to support your side of the arguement except a move and liars who keep telling the same story that the jet was not shot down or broke up in mid-flight. Look around? Ever wonder why no one else is attacking my stance? And besides how do you know if I could understand physics or not? I work with construction engineers and folks with degrees in physics, so although the fine details might escape me, it wouldn't escape those who have degrees in the field.
Hmmmm, let me thing...NO...hence it's called a CONTROLLED demolition. It also doesn't damage other buildings next to it like the WTC towers did. Ooooh, don't you just hate it when your arguement doesn't work both ways??
At no point did I enter WTC towers into the arguement we are discussing, only controlled demolitions. According to you, the plane was controlled into the ground correct? And according to you, this nose dive crash now creates more explosive energy than a CD and an atomic bomb. Wow, Just Me, I know you don't have to be trained in physics, but common sense would certainly be beneficial to your theory and the OS theory.
I didn't say stuff landed miles away Your right, the local authorities, FBI, and the OS did. You didn't say that because it completely destroy's your analysis of the incident. Multiple debris fields miles away can not be accounted for by a nose dive crash into an abandoned strip mine. And remember you did your calculations based upon HARD ground, which totaly throws your work off, because the ground was very soft due to past mining activities. So your premises is flawed from day one of your research, if you truly did use 'hard' ground numbers again because the ground was soft.
And you call me ignorant of the issue?
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the debris field looked different that normal plane crashes because usually, in the event of a crash landing, the pilot tries to make the landing as best he can, and in this case, it was an intentional crash by normal people who were trying to minimize further injury to a country they loved?
First off, this entire statement is an arguement from ignorance and appeal to emotion. One you try to point out a difference between unintentional controlled crash landing and an intentional crash. Notice the difference? Crash landing versus a crash. Your appeal to emotion is used by throwing in the heroics of the people and the country they loved. Seems to me the FDR has the terrorists crashing the plane, not the passengers. Have you read the transcirpts of the tape to determine that?
A typical crash landing has the pilot to the best of his ability skidding the plane on its belly, while the crash we are describing was a nose dive. Two different scenarious and you can't use that logic tactic to prove yourself right or prove me wrong.
Other nose dive crashes:www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm?sid=5354
www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/12/newyork.crash.scene/
www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/12/newyork.crash.scene/
Just google nose dive crash and find me an example where the crash produced multiple debris fields up to 8 miles away and I will admit defeat. If you can't, I will accept your theory and the OS wrong.
The plane was not shot down and it is as simple as that and none of your spin and BS will change that.
Stevew, please explain what I have spun? In doing so, remember you will be calling the FBI, local authorities, and eyewitnesses, as well as the OS a bunch of liars. NM, you can't. Please ignore that request. And do us favor, add to the debate by presenting facts and figures not personal attacks. It only re-emphasises that one, you disagree with the OS because of the facts and science and your just trolling or two, you still by the OS but have nothing to counter my points.
What fantasy land do you live in where a nose dive crash leaves multiple debris fields, sends debris up to 8 miles away, and produces more force than an atomic bomb? No spin zone bubba! LOL
Stevew, go look at the offical map showing the debris field and tell me how I spun that? Go read the press reports regarding the incident.
And then appologize or stop lying about what I'm posting.
It is the same recycled BS that you put a new coat of paint on. There is nothing in your 5000 word post of nonsense that rebukes anything. Good try but when someone reads it it still smells of the same crap that you assholes have been trying, with little succuss, to pass off as the truth. Any one could ask a myrad of questions and try and make a case for conspiricy. The bottom line is there are no benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline so every conspirasy expert can come out of the woodwork with silly theories and completly avoid the true facts. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Anyone could take any disaster and ask a myriad of questions that have no relivence.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040617-norad-9-11-2.htm
But please continue you are mildly intertaining
Perhaps he's living in some other plane of reality where they have the following laws of physics:
1. Objects with huge amounts of momentum stop immediately without any outside force acting on them and then fall straight down.
2. When you run off of a cliff, you don't actually start falling until you look down and realize that you're no longer standing on the ground.
3. If you paint a tunnel on the side of a cliff, the Road Runner will run through it with no problem but the Coyote will smash into the rock wall.
But for the rest of us living in this world, he just sounds like an idiot (in more ways than I can even count in just that one paragraph).
It appears you have done a horrible job of understanding my analysis. Obviously both the engine and the plane have horizontal velocity if they detach from each other, and neglecting wind resistance, that velocity won't change. However, the engine has no wings with which to slow its descent, and it will plummmet to the ground faster than the plane. This is also supported by witness testimony that says the plane was still being maneuvered moments before it crashed. It did not begin to plummet to the ground once it was hit.
Actually, depending on how it was hit and how it was flying, an exploding plane might leave a very wide OR very narrow field of debris. There's a bunch of factors that play a part in how it lands. He compares Flight 93's debris field to the one of TWA 800, however, TWA 800 blew up at 14,000 feet, whereas 93 would have been much lower. I shouldn't have to explain how height affects the spread of debris.
You SHOULD have to explain why the spread of debris was so random, though. You should also explain why the plane increased in altitude by 4,000 feet after supposedly being hit by a missile. And you should explain why you said I cited TWA Flight 800 in my post when I actually cited Pan Am Flight 103.
Well, if the "majority of the plane" is intact, there wouldn't be a "lack of debris". Not sure where he's going with that.
If the plane was intact at the time of its collision with the ground, you wouldn't see debris spread over a very wide area. If it was NOT intact before colliding with the ground, that means that some plane debris would have come out of the plane prior to its collision with the ground, and you'd expect to see more debris, especially BEHIND the crash site!
A missile takes off an engine, but leaves the wing intact? .....right. More likely the strike would also blow off a wing, causing the aircraft to go into a spin. Incidentally this would also increase the air-resistance of the aircraft - a 767 travelling sideways through the air is not very aerodynamic. While there's no real way to predict exactly where the parts would land, it's safe to say that there's no freakin' way that the engine would simply plummet downwards while the aircraft sailed on.
Trust me pal, it's just as ridiculous to me as it is to you. But you have to take into account the fact that witnesses saw the plane moments before it hit the ground, and they say it was intact with both of its wings. You also have to accept the fact that the plane ascended 4,000 feet right before plummeting straight to the ground, meaning it must have had its wings in order to maneuver somehow.
Not necessarily. It depends on which of the two falling object created the most air-resistance relative to it's weight. Also the control surfaces of the aircraft could make a big difference depending on what the pilot was doing at that point in time.
I didn't know air resistance was relative to weight! (it isn't, fyi) I thought it depended on surface area. So if an object had, say, wings, it wouldn't fall as fast as something without wings. And it would hit the ground in front of the thing without wings. How does that not make sense?
And we do know what the pilot was doing at that point in time. Just look at the FDR data.
Anyway, the entire article is full of mistakes and inconsistencies. In fact, when I initially skimmed it, I thought that this guy was a CTer. Ofcourse, the fact that he ends one of his articles by saying that 93 landed at Shanksville doesn't help either, but the main reason I got that impression was because of the poor quality of some of his reasoning. I hate to pick on someone who's fighting against CTs, but...well, there it is. A lot of his research is well done, but the parts of his articles where he tries to be scientific....no.
Ouch. Unfortunately, it appears your arguments are entirely without merit. And if you take issue with some of what I say, let me remind you that you can leave comments there, just as you can leave comments here. If I make a mistake, PLEASE point it out to me at my journal!
And just a word or two about the post - first of all, thank you Screw Loose Change for dedicating another post to my journal! I love the extra traffic.
The fact of the matter is that I do realize the ridiculousness of the scenario. Since I do not believe the plane was shot down, I obviously don't support this theory at all.
I am merely trying to cover the bases. Some have argued that the plane's engine would have been damaged or knocked off the plane due to a missile attack. Since the witnesses who saw the plane said it had its wings, and since FDR data shows the plane climbing 4,000 feet at the end of its flight, we can assume that this just isn't true.
Also, rather than complaining about errors on my journal here, please do me a favor and let ME know of my mistakes. If I made a point you did not understand, or if I said something that could have been said better, PLEASE tell me. My journal allows comments from everyone, and I even permit anonymous comments. So please, take it up with me next time.
Post a Comment
<< Home