Challenge: provide proof that 80% of the Flight 93 Boeing 757 was found underground

[spooked911]

The final official story was that 80% of the huge plane was crumpled up and buried under the soil at the bottom of the Shanksville crater.

Apart from the one govt. picture showing an engine fragment laying in the crater next to a excavator shovel, can anyone provide photographic evidence that 80% of the plane was found under the ground?

Thanks.

[AZCat]

1. Where do you get the 80% claim?

Please provide a reference to the "official story" document that makes this claim.


ETA: 80% of what - mass? Volume? Please clarify.

[Matsuflex]

92. The claim is bogus

I've been to the crash site. The plane mostly disintegrated. I don't know where the OP is getting his facts.

[AZCat]

94. The OP's facts are colorful, to say the least.

You are new here so you might not be aware of the history of this particular poster, but as far as September 11th conspiracy theories go, he has taken the road less traveled. His current theory? Nuclear bombs brought down the WTC towers. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

96. I hesitate to attempt to divine the motivations of anonymous posters on the internet.

I would prefer not to follow in the footsteps of Bill Frist (re. Terry Schiavo). I try to see spooked911's posts for what they are, and judge them on their merits.

In order to truly appreciate spooked911, though, you need to read this thread.

[Matsuflex]

97. Rabbit fence? ROTFL

[AZCat]

100. Exactly.

In spooked911's defense, at least he's out there researching and testing hypotheses. I always encourage people to learn new things and experiment hands-on. So he's a little confused about basic physical principles like scaling - he's still far better than those whose only contribution is typing out angry, misspelled, horribly flawed rants and accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being a part of a CIA scam. spooked911 at least understands there is a world that exists outside the internet.

[Matsuflex]

103. If he likes testing hypotheses,

tell him to throw one of those extra long beer cans into the ground at 500 mph and see what happens.

[AZCat]

104. Purdue did something similar...

for validation of part of their September 11th visualization project. You can read about it here.

[Make7]

106. Reading spooked911's blog is also rather instructive.

This entry is perhaps one of my favorites:

Wings Break Off

I set up an experiment testing how a plane might break up upon impacting arrayed steel columns like the WTC wall. The plane and the columns were both constructed of similar pieces of wood (which here favors the plane, since in real life, aluminum is weaker than steel). The dimensions of the models were not perfect, but they were a rough match for the WTC and a 767. I did not put floors into the model, so this also favors the plane.

I pushed the plane forcefully into the "wall", and while the fuselage penetrated the wall after reasonably strong force was applied, the wings broke off at the root where the wings met the plane. The wings actually bent backwards and slid into the hole alongside the fuselage. The wood of the wings actually broke. A few "columns" broke where the fuselage went in, and a couple broke on either side of the fuselage hole, where the wings broke off-- but basically the array of columns were much stronger than the long wings.

This actually makes sense in terms of physics. The fuselage had a concentrated impact force on a relatively small front area, and thus could break the columns inward. However, a wing has a much wider impact area, which dissipates the impact force, thus favoring the columns' strength. If I were an engineer, I'm sure I could find an equation that could describe this phenomenon. Basically, of course, it is the same principle why a pointed object has more penetrating power than a long straight edge-- even if both are equally sharp.

Note that in real-life, the aluminum wings should break off even more readily when they impact heavy steel columns than in this experiment.

This finding that the wings break off also fits with what is observed in other plane crashes: the wings break off.

This means of course, that no 767 hit either WTC tower.

   -snip-


http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/04/wings-break-off.html

[AZCat]

118. The comments are usually pretty amusing, too.

I can't wait until spooked911 starts building scale models of the towers to test his "nuke" theories.

[Matsuflex]

138. How does the OP think the plane should have crashed?

I don't even understand the purpose of the OP's challenge.

[AZCat]

142. Somewhere around here there's a diagram he drew...

showing what he thought it should have looked like, had Flight 93 really crashed in a field outside of Shanksville. Maybe one of the other posters here has a link, but I'll take a look - it's worth it for the lulz.

[Matsuflex]

150. What did he think it should have looked like?

[AZCat]

160. I think I found the thread.

spooked911 and William Seger went back and forth about this at length about two years ago. One of the threads is here. For some reason the images don't show up for me. If this happens to you, try reading the corresponding entry on his blog.

[Matsuflex]

172. His blog confused me more than ever

What is he trying to say? What was this great lie? Admittedly I just skimmed through it.

[AZCat]

179. My advice? Don't try to understand it.

You'll drive yourself insane. I prefer to sit back and enjoy his posts, and share them with my coworkers at the water cooler. Busting his balls over inconsistencies does little or no good, as a quick read of that thread should show. If you want to do it, by all means go ahead - but remember that spooked911 isn't bound by the laws of physics or logic, making him tough to corner.

[Matsuflex]

186. I'm lost on what his challenge is about

What about he crash does he think is some great lie?

[AZCat]

201. Take your pick.

IIRC spooked911 has questioned the crater dimensions, shape, and depth, the quantity and type of debris. He might have questioned other things but honestly it's all handwaving in order to rationalize his immensely vast conspiracy theory.

[Matsuflex]

206. What's his conspiracy about this crash?

I guess that's what I'm not getting.

[AZCat]

212. I'm not sure if he has one.

It is not unusual for conspiracy theorists to focus on discrepancies in so-called "official accounts" rather than construct their own narratives. spooked911's "nukes in the towers" hypothesis is unusual (in more ways than one). At least one prominent member of the "truth movement" (David Ray Griffin, IIRC) has suggested avoiding the creation of hypotheses, because it gives the opposition (in other words, us) something to pick apart.

[Matsuflex]

255. What's the point behind his challenge?

Is he just an internet troll?

[AZCat]

257. You got me.

If I had to guess, our inability to satisfy the requirements of his challenge is somehow part of his "evidence" that Flight 93 didn't crash in the Shanksville field.

I don't think he's a troll. He's just really into it.

[Matsuflex]

259. Where does he think it crashed then?

What does he think caused the crater that displays where the wings hit? Is he trying to find the smallest inconsistencies in the reported stories and trying to make a grand conspiracy out of it?

[AZCat]

260. I'm not sure.

To be honest, most of the claims made by September 11th conspiracy theorists (when they deign to make them) blur together in my memory. With a few exceptions (like spooked911's "nukes in the towers" hypothesis) I can't keep straight who supports what claims, partly because they themselves shift quite rapidly. It's not unusual for a CTer to support one claim in a post, then turn around and support a contradictory claim in another post when it suits him.

Yes, I think he is trying to make mountains out of molehills.

[Matsuflex]

321. I just realized it, he thinks the crash was staged

He doesn't think the plane crashed there at all. Am I correct in that assessment?

[hoi_polloi]

456. Hey, you're catching on!

He makes that assessment because it's backed up by the most amount of evidence: namely the vast amount of evidence that no matter how much media is released about the events of 9/11, none of it adds up to ENOUGH evidence about their "theory" (which is actually a boldfaced lie) about hijacked airplanes.

They can keep piling on videos, articles and touching personal stories, but NONE of it adds up to their official story of Terrorism. And if they're not careful, they will continue to actually contradict themselves, as they have done endlessly since 9/11.

The only thing that doesn't contradict itself is the fact that they have lied about everything. They blew up the buildings with bombs and bunker busters, and completely controlled all media released by making it impossible for anyone to film reality on that day.

[hack89]

461. So what happened?

why has the truther community failed to come up with a detailed scenario that explains what happened on 911? It kills me that the evidence proves beyond a doubt that the official story is a complete fabrication yet the same evidence is not enough to explain what happened.

[Matsuflex]

462. I've showed them two similar plane crashes

The Boeing 737 United Flight 585 and Canberra WD991 crash. Both crashed into a field, were reduced to mostly small pieces that scattered all over the ground, and left similar sized craters. Why do they think the United Flight 93 crash was so suspicious?

[AZCat]

463. If I had to guess...

I'd say that they think the Flight 93 crash is suspicious because it appears to them to have benefited the administration of George W. Bush.

[Matsuflex]

465. I'm surprised this entire forum doesn't think it was a conspiracy

lulz

[AZCat]

466. Not all of us are gullible fools.

Skeptical - yes; gullible - no.

[spooked911]

474. heh

why do you believe the official story then?

[William Seger]

537. I think it's because....

... UA93 really screws up MIHOP theories. If the other three flights were "suspicious" then UA93 has to be, too -- whether or not the suspicions make any sense -- otherwise MIHOPers might have to consider the possibility that MIHOP itself doesn't make any sense.

[jberryhill]

531. Oh hell no

Spooked911 is a national treasure.

As AZCat has pointed out, Spooked is an original and creative thinker. He marches to the beat of his own spastic drummer, which puts him a league apart from the run-of-the-mill hit-and-run cut-and-paster truther here.

[snooper2]

493. HOLY SHIT THANK YOU

That was the funniest fucking thing I have seen in years!!!!!!!!!!!


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Realityhack]

669. May that thread be preserved forever... it is too funny. n/t

[Name removed]

385. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

2. Eight pictures here

go down to the thumbnails - they are clearly labeled.

Your 80 percent is a strawman.

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

edited to add link

[AZCat]

3. Link?

It looks like you accidentally left it out of the post.

[hack89]

4. Thanks - I added the link. nt

[AZCat]

5. No sweat.

I figured that's what you would link to. Excellent site, if a bit difficult to look at (emotionally, I mean).

[rollingrock]

6. All the debris in those photos

could probably fit into one suitcase, lol.

what happened to the rest of it? seats, luggage, fuselage, wings, tail section?

[hack89]

7. Perhaps there are other photos not on the internet?

can you show me a single criminal or accident investigation where the government has posted every piece of evidence on the internet? Is that your expectation? Has 911 been treated any different from any other such crime?

I guess I don't understand where you are coming from - do you really expect that 911 can be documented to the nth degree purely from stuff on the internet? Don't you realize how unrealistic that is?

[rollingrock]

8. No, and that's a straw man

a normal aerial shot of an airplane crash shows you hundreds of pieces of the plane that can be seen from hundreds of feet away. but in these aerial shots, there's virtually nothing but dirt.

[LARED]

9. Are you a no-plane advocate? nt

[rollingrock]

10. The photographic evidence speaks for itself

so do the the witnesses.

Susan McIlwain adamant it was a small white plane. (Global Hawk?)


ABC News: 'hundreds of investigators on the scene, they found nothing larger than a telephone book.'

Fox News: 'it looks like there's nothing there but a hole in the ground.'




'I stopped being a coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there.'

-W. Miller, Somerset County Coroner

[hack89]

13. Classic truther cherry picking and manipulating quotes

tell me with a straight face that Wallace Miller thinks there were no human remains at the crash site:

As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56110-2002May8

Seven victims of the Sept. 11 United Airlines Flight 93 crash in Somerset County were positively identified over the weekend, bringing the number of identified bodies to 11.

But Somerset County Coroner said that additional identifications could take months. There were 44 passengers and crew members on the flight.

"We're in the process of notifying families," said Miller near the crash scene yesterday. "We're continuing the identification process as we speak."

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010924scenenat5p5.asp

Officials have positively identified all 40 passengers and crew members who died when United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Somerset County on Sept. 11.

Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said Wednesday that the last identification had been made.

http://www.kcra.com/news/1134481/detail.html

[defendandprotect]

675. Very simple to plant DNA evidence ... this is not what the coroner originally said .. .

and certainly we see a great deal of intimidation in all of these cases . ..

including 9/11 --

[hack89]

11. What about the eyewitness accounts of debris and human remains?

why do you ignore them?

[rollingrock]

12. It seems to me

...you are the one who is ignoring the witnesses.

[hack89]

14. No - there were thousands that worked that site for months

why haven't a single one of them confirmed your CT? What about all those people, including the local coroner, that picked up and identified the human remains?

Seems to me that there are no witness that actually worked the crash site that support your view.

[rollingrock]

15. I have yet to see you produce any actual evidence

that shows Flight 93 crashed into Shanksville.

to the contrary, the official photos you linked to is proof positive that it never did.

[hack89]

17. What about these eye witnesses?

what about statements from the first responders:

"After calling for backup from several area fire companies, King and the other firefighters, who had never responded to an airplane crash, surveyed the scene. None of them was prepared for what they saw. King recalls the paper strewn in the trees and clothing and shoes scattered on the ground. There were no bodies, he says. Just body parts. 'That's when the sheer destruction of the crash really hit home,' he says."

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/sept11stonycreekjan02.pdf

King is also the Assistant Fire Chief of the Shanksville Volunteer Fire Department. He was one of the first emergency workers at the scene of the crash.

The morning of the crash, King was watching the events of Sept. 11th unfold on television in disbelief. King called his sister, and as they were talking, she paused and told him that she could hear a low flying jet flying near her house. King knew all planes were ordered out of the sky, but kept in mind that some of the planes were reported missing. Seconds later, the plane hit, the impact shaking the town. King ran to the firehall, jumped into the fire truck with 4 other firefighters and raced off to the crash site.

"I felt it was too coincidental not to be related to what was going on. I didn't think that Shanksville was a target of terrorists attacks, I just didn't know what was going on,' said King. He was not sure what scene to expect at the crash site. When King and his crew arrived, they saw what smoking pieces remained of the plane. “There were small pieces everywhere and small signs of human remains. It was total destruction.”

Excerpts from "Courage After the Crash: Flight 93" by Glenn J. Kashurba. SAJ Publishing, 2002.

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."

Shanksville VFD firefighter Keith Curtis: "I walked up to where the tire was on fire, probably a hundred feet past the crater. It was a big tire. I was thinking that this is a big jet. I hit it good with the hose and put it out. I stopped and 'poof,' it just started on fire again."

Firefighter Mike Sube: "We made our way to a small pond. That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there. ...There were enough fires that our brush truck was down there numerous times. ...I saw small pieces of human remains and occasionally some larger pieces. That was disturbing, but what was most disturbing was seeing personal effects."

Lieutenant Roger Bailey, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department: "We started down through the debris field. I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail...Mail was scattered everywhere. ...the one guy who was with us almost stepped on a piece of human remains. I grabbed him, and he got about half woozy over it."

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."

Gerry Parry, Berlin Volunteer Fire Department: "I stopped and talked to the custodian, Don Stutzman. He and a teacher, Mike Sheeler, and I were standing in the corner of the parking lot when we felt and heard the explosion. If I had been turned the other direction, I might have seen it go down. We saw the smoke immediately. ...It felt too large to be a strip mine explosion, and usually, we have some idea when they are going to happen."

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."

When former firefighter Dave Fox arrived at the scene, "He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote. He saw three chunks of torn human tissue. He swallowed hard. 'You knew there were people there, but you couldn't see them,' he says." Source


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)


Faye Hahn, an EMT, responded to the first reports of the crash. She says: "Several trees were burned badly and there were papers everywhere. We searched. ... I was told that there were 224 passengers, but later found out that there were actually forty. I was stunned. There was nothing there." (David McCall, From Tragedy to Triumph, 2002, pp. 31-32)

[rollingrock]

18. Did you read any of the quotes you just posted?

Many of them said they saw no evidence of a plane crash.



For example:

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)

[Bolo Boffin]

19. What you have just done is twist that quote.

And you did it because it's short and you took the lack of context and ran with it.

Do you honestly think that Wells Morrison is trying to tell anyone that he couldn't find evidence of a plane crash? Or was he just trying to convey the utter destruction at the site?

[rollingrock]

20. Whatever you say, bolo.

lol.

I copy and pasted hack's quote word for word. If you have a problem with it,
take it up with hack89.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. It isn't that you quoted him accurately, it's what you did with it after

Answer that question: Do you really think Wells Morrison was trying to say that Flight 93 didn't crash in Shanksville?

If you answer no, then you've twisted his quote out of context.

If you answer yes, you're 100% wrong.

You aren't looking very good here.

[rollingrock]

22. Uhhh...do you have a problem grasping the English language?

what part of... "My first thought was, 'Where is the plane?'....I was not seeing anything that was distinguishable either as human remains or aircraft debris."

...do you not understand??


You're going to love this one too:


Faye Hahn, an EMT, responded to the first reports of the crash. She says: "Several trees were burned badly and there were papers everywhere. We searched. ... I was told that there were 224 passengers, but later found out that there were actually forty. I was stunned. There was nothing there." (David McCall, From Tragedy to Triumph, 2002, pp. 31-32)

[Bolo Boffin]

23. "The remains of a number of passengers had been found in all five [search] sectors."

Do you understand what that means, rolling rock?

The crash site at Shanksville was divided into five sectors for searching. The remains for a number of the passengers were found in all five. In other words, some of the passengers had remains identified in EACH of the sectors.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. "I walked up to where the tire was on fire, probably a hundred feet past the crater."

"It was a big tire. I was thinking that this is a big jet. I hit it good with the hose and put it out. I stopped and 'poof,' it just started on fire again."

What does that mean in plain English, rollingrock?

[Bolo Boffin]

25. "That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear..."

Firefighter Mike Sube: "We made our way to a small pond. That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there. ...There were enough fires that our brush truck was down there numerous times. ...I saw small pieces of human remains and occasionally some larger pieces. That was disturbing, but what was most disturbing was seeing personal effects."

What does that mean in plain English, rollingrock?

[Bolo Boffin]

26. "I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail..."

Lieutenant Roger Bailey, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department: "We started down through the debris field. I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail...Mail was scattered everywhere. ...the one guy who was with us almost stepped on a piece of human remains. I grabbed him, and he got about half woozy over it."

What does that mean in plain English, rollingrock?

[planeman]

112. how could there be so much mail if the there was a huge fireball when the plane exploded?

[Bolo Boffin]

123. So you're saying this person is a liar? n/t

[planeman]

168. please give a physical explanation of how paper survived the fireball that consumed the plane

thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

174. So you are saying that these people were liars? They didn't see mail

and pieces of the planes and their passengers? You're saying that didn't happen?

[planeman]

177. I am asking YOU to explain how mail can survive an intense fireball and an explosion

so powerful that it caused an aluminium plane to shatter into small pieces.
Yet unburnt bibles and mail survived.

[Bolo Boffin]

182. But I asked YOU first to say if these people were liars

Why should I answer your questions if you won't answer mine?

[planeman]

191. No i dont believe they are liarsNow explain to me how the mail + bible survived the fiery explosion

thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

195. The way that mail and things like that survive every airplane crash

explosion or not.

So how do you think the mail and bible got there?

[planeman]

200. you cannot have it both ways.mail and other parts do survive other plane crashes.

but those plane crashes also have large recognisable plane parts.

Yet flight 93 was reduced to very small pieces(save that fuselage+ engine debris-these fotos were released years after the event) ..yet bibles survive.unburnt?

[Bolo Boffin]

224. I'm not having it both ways.

There's no reason to think that mail and other light objects wouldn't survive the crash of 93, the way they survive every other plane crash. You need to explain why they couldn't.

Are you trying to suggest that the fuselage and engine debris pictures were forged?

Unburned bible? Please show the photograph.

[planeman]

228. I am not concerned about the mail.I am concerned about the very small

amount of debris from flight 93.
You have single handedly failed to produce the 80% that spooked demanded in the op

[Bolo Boffin]

232. Well then why do you keep asking me about it?

The very small debris amount from 93 that you have seen.

There exists no imperative among anyone there to satisfy your desire here. I don't know why you would think someone needs to.

[planeman]

237. because a plane cannot fly at 560 mph at msl.

and because it is ridiculouse that aplane will completely disintegrate into very small parts on impact with soft dirt.

[Bolo Boffin]

240. How does the mail and your concern or non-concern with it have anything to do with plane's speed?

Are you trying to make sense? Please do a better job.

[planeman]

243. you know what I am talking about.

Little of fl93 has been recovered even though it hit soft dirt.a contradiction in itself.
Flight 93 also attained speeds far in excess of what a boeing 757 is capable of without breaking apart.another contradiction.the only thing that does not make sense is the story you believe in.

[Bolo Boffin]

251. No, I do know. You were asking me about the mail and then that was unimportant and now you're

talking about two unrelated topics. I don't understand what the mail has to do with either of those points. Please explain.

95% of Flight 93 was recovered from the site.

You are also confused about how fast an object under the acceleration of both jet engines and gravity can fly.

[planeman]

269. LOL!!! you crack me up boffin.

Exactly how much thrust would be needed for a plane to travel at 500mph at mean sea level.
Calculation please.

[Bolo Boffin]

273. A plane accelerating downward has more than thrust to consider.

The engines are not being asked to fight gravity. Gravity is indeed assisting the pilot in the direction he wants to go. So the stresses that normally come from fighting gravity are not there.

This "mean sea level" you've appropriated so as to appear you know what you're talking about, was this speed calculated as the plane flew level? Because Flight 93 was not flying level at that speed. It was pointing down.

[planeman]

280. it did not point down all the way.

Jarrah resumed pitching the plane up and down.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/911.flight.93/index.html

every time jarrah pitches the plane up he loses speed.
and he did these pitch up movements at 9;59.
that means he had less than 4 minutes to accelerate the plane to a speed in excess of 500mph.
this story of fl93 is full of it.

[Bolo Boffin]

283. The pitching of the plane stopped after the dive began at 10:02.

Jarrah and al-Ghamdi rolled it to the right, turning the plane upside down, and ditched it into the ground. No pitching or rolling after that is apparent from the FDR. That's when it accelerates to 500+.

You need to do more research.

[planeman]

313. from what altitude? did the nose dive begin.would there have been enough time to get to 500mph?

even though a lane cannot reach 500mph at sea level LOL

[vincent_vega_lives]

392. Flight 93 nose dove from 10,000

for almost a minute. Plenty of time to reach 490kts.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_Path_%20Study_UA93.pdf

This is a stupid argument.

[planeman]

513. you dont know the story you believe in

560 mph is 9 miles flown in a minute

Stoytown is 8-9 miles away from the crash site.

so if in its final minute fl93 dove 10000 feet then witness who were 9 miles away would have seen the plane diving.

instead they saw it level off.


The plane leveled off but began descending away from the airport, Mr. Peterson said. Five minutes later, he learned that the plane had crashed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14PENN.html?ex=1113451200&en=799e89a96943e5d9&ei=5070

alveling off plane aint gonna reach 560 mph.get it?

[SDuderstadt]

263. It's even more "ridiculouse" to claim a plane in a nosedive...

is "flying"

[planeman]

268. fl93 was travelling at low altitude for several minutes before impacting.

how did it manage to get up to 500mph + at such low altitude?

[Bolo Boffin]

274. I think you need to do a little more research.

It didn't begin to approach 500+ mph until its descent.

[planeman]

276. so do you.provide the link thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

281. You first. Provide the link for your "msl" nonsense.

Plus, it's your claim that the plane flew 500+ mph at low altitude. Provide the link for it doing so while flying level and not nose-diving.

Thank you.

[planeman]

286. its in this book.go buy it and inform yourself.

http://shop.pilotwarehouse.co.uk/product415023catno98000023.html

[Bolo Boffin]

309. Feel free to provide a quote from the book. n/t

[planeman]

312. go buy it and prove me wrong.

[Bolo Boffin]

314. Mm-hmm.

Riiiiight. I'm guessing there's some context you don't want us to know about. LOL.

[planeman]

317. just go buy the book and prove me wrong. and you are dead wrong about the context.

[Bolo Boffin]

324. You're misapplying it. That's apparent from the face of it. n/t

[planeman]

326. you have not even read the book yet you have the audacity to claim

i am claiming something out of context.typical.buy the book.prove me wrong.but you cannot.

[Bolo Boffin]

327. You are posting garbage and claiming you got it from this book

A. The book spouts the same garbage and isn't worth buying

B. You're bungling the quote from the book to prop up your garbage.

This is true because what you are misapplying a statement about flying at MSL to what Flight 93 was doing. I don't have to buy the book to see that you are wrong about Flight 93.

[planeman]

328. in fact you post garbage dear mr boffin

having the audacity to claim i am claiming something out of context without even having read the book in question speaks volumes about the quality(ahem!) of your research.

[Bolo Boffin]

333. No, I'm calling your application of some MSL factoid to what Flight 93 did garbage

And I highly doubt you got any such intimation of doing so from that book you got the factoid from.

Your position is garbage, irrespective of where you got the factoid you're misapplying here. I don't need the book to see that.

[planeman]

335. aplane cannot fly at 500mph + at mean sel level...not without losing control.or shedding parts

that is a fact dude.
deal with it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

347. If you really believe this

you should change your screen name.

[planeman]

351. aboing 767/757 cannot fly faster that 360 kts without incuring aerodynamic stress

that is a fact.like mr boffin-deal with it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

388. Yes this aerodynamic stress

IS IMPORTANT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE LIFESPAN OF THE AIRFRAME. IT DOES NOT MEAN THE FRIKEN PLANE WILL FALL APART!!!!!!

[planeman]

425. NO IT IS IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE SAFETY HANDLING QUALITIES OF THE PLANE.

yes it can be exceeded,even by a considerable distance depending on the altitude.
But the structural integrity of the plane and its handling abilities ARE compromised.

I will continue to hammer home this point. so give it up.

[hack89]

441. But what does it matter when the plane is being deliberately crashed?

even if there was some structural failure and impaired handling what differences does it make when the plane is plummeting to the ground?

[planeman]

505. because you cannot attain that speed.you cannot crash at that speed.

find me another plane that has crashed at 560mph into the ground?

[hack89]

515. So even though you can reach that speed at altitude

when you go into a dive with max thrust, the plane will actually slow down as it approaches the ground?

Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

[planeman]

520. you dont go into a dive with max thrust-you retard the thrust to idle

and allow the plane to glide-start adding thrust and you climb. jeez

[hack89]

526. Care to provide a link that backs that up?

this should be interesting.

[planeman]

570. A link?- do you live on the internet only? buy the book by julien evans

"How Airliners Fly"
published by airlife in 1999

It deals specifically with 767's and is written by a 767 pilot-
Reading the book will be an eye opener for you IN HOW REAL PLANES FLY

[hack89]

586. I didn't think you had anything, nt

[planeman]

596. "With its engines AT IDLE THRUST the typical jet liner will glide"

How Airliners Fly
By Julien Evans
page 36.

It is you mr hack who never had and never will have anything.

[William Seger]

516. PSA Flight 1771

... also a deliberate crash, got to Mach 1.2 before it started breaking up, and hit the ground at an estimated 700 MPH:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_1771

[planeman]

519. yeah from 22000 feet double the distance that fl93 had to start from

and as you say it broke apart-something that fl93 failed to do.
also nobody was flying the psa 1771 plane into the ground.they were already dead.

but jarrah flew the plane into the ground-impossible.

[William Seger]

547. What seems to be impossible

... is for you to admit that you wrong. That's a very bad habit for someone who seems to be wrong so often.

[planeman]

567. that is a very accurate description of yourself and you did not address the question i posed

that flight came down from a much higher altitude without anyone in control.
it also broke apart conforming to the laws of overstreeses aircraft.

[William Seger]

576. Well, I thought the answers were obvious

But since you don't seem to know when to quit:

1) There's no logical reason to think that 20,000 feet is required to reach that speed

2) You've been claiming that jetliners couldn't reach that speed at all, not that UA93 didn't have enough altitude to reach that speed.

3) Why should having no one in control allow a greater speed than having someone intent on crashing?

4) The NTSB report says PSA 1771 started breaking up at Mach 1.2, far in excess of the speed that UA93 hit the ground and well before it had descended 20,000 feet.

In short, the crash of PSA 1771 completely demolishes your entire argument.

[planeman]

580. It actually debunks you and here is the proof.

the mach numbers are only used to define speed ABOVE 25000 feet.

The air is less dense at 20000 feet than at ground level-yet even then the 1771 plane broke apart.

So what is more dense air going to do a plane traveling at its VDF at low altitude mr seagar?
that is correct sir
it will do this

Residents of nearby Indian Lake reported seeing debris falling from the jetliner as it overflew the area shortly before crashing.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12969.html

[William Seger]

585. You just can't stop yourself from digging the hole deeper, can you

There is absolutely no rule that "mach numbers are only used to define speed ABOVE 25000 feet," and anyway that's the speed the NTSB gave, not me. It's just the speed relative to sound, which ALSO varies by altitude: It's HIGHER at low altitude.

And then this is priceless: You claim that UA93 should have been breaking up at 450 kts, then post some witness accounts from people who think they did see pieces falling off the plane just before the crash, and you claim that I've been debunked? Dude, you're hysterical.

[planeman]

595. Mr seagar you are out of your depth-read Stanley Stewart's book

Flying the Big jets.
"For cruising speeds above 25000 feet the mach meter is used"
page 116

You are nothing more than anonymouse internet message board member.Do you have the gall to dispute Stanley Stewart who has 15000 hrs flying experience in a boeing 747 with both UK and canadian tranport licenses.

As for now conceding that witnesses did see parts falling off the plane before it crashed.
Why does the official story not concede the point?

Because it is full of bull.

[William Seger]

635. LOL, I got that number from the NTSB report

Perhaps they aren't familiar with the fine work of Mr. Stewart. Perhaps you should send them a copy.

> "Why does the official story not concede the point?"

Which "official story" would that be? If you mean the NTSB report, maybe because they don't know that for sure? Do you? I'm still baffled why you keep bringing that up, since if pieces were falling off, that would tend to confirm that the plane was flying very fast, which you deny. I also have to wonder why you think the NTSB would try to cover that up, as it appears to confirm the high speed.

[planeman]

656. dont try that "which official story" line with me.

have you not read Dominicks posts.
Jim Stop saw parts falling off the plane even though according to the official trajectory the plane did not fly anywhere near him.

Looks like that plane was "spraying plane debris" dleiberetly.

[jberryhill]

532. In most plane crash situations

...the pilot is attempting to land as softly as possible.

It is very unusual for the "pilot" not to really give a damn how fast or at what angle the plane "lands".

[planeman]

569. these pilots were trying to control the planes so they could hit their targets.

but you cannot control these planes once you exceed VMO.
Even an experienced pilot would struggle to maintain control of a plane that is exceeding its VMO by a considerable margin.

[SDuderstadt]

571. Why would you need to worry about any of those things if...

what you're actually trying to do is ram your plane into the ground?

[planeman]

573. because the crappy bullshit story that you believe in clings to the myth

that the plane was reduced to nothing because it attained a high speed when it crashed.

the truth is that you cannot attain that speed at such a low altitude
and that even if you did the crater left behind would be much larger because the amount of energy involved in the crash.like pan am 103.

was ziad jarrah trying to break the sound barrier at mean sea level or something?

[vincent_vega_lives]

348. Not at 560 mph but

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2787482791697822411&hl=en

[planeman]

352. seen that video already-none of those planes are travelling at 500mph and you know it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

389. No but neither are they falling apart

and high speed pass would indicate speeds well above landing and take off. I bet most are over 350 kts.

[planeman]

395. you must not forget that those plane are being flown by experienced pilots too

the hijackers of 911 had no such experience.

[vincent_vega_lives]

391. I've seen F-16s flying by at low level

at 600 mph, and some of those low level passes are probably close to 500mph. Say 350-400 kts.

[planeman]

396. but the 911 hijackers were not f-16 pilots!

[Realityhack]

668. "because a plane cannot fly at 560 mph at msl." - Yes it can. n/t

[planeman]

672. no it cannot- there would not be enough thrust to go at 560 mph at 700 ft

[vincent_vega_lives]

264. The "explosion" didn't cause the plane to disintergrate

The GROUND did.

[planeman]

267. many planes hit the ground but they do not disintegrate like fl93.

[SDuderstadt]

270. And you're demonstrating that you still cannot tell the difference....

between a plane crash in which the pilot is dong everything possible to avoid the crash and one in which the pilot deliberately slammed it into the ground. Why should we have to explain this to you?

[planeman]

275. you did not answer the question. how did Jarrah manage to exceed

the speed limitation of a boeing 757 at low altitude?

[SDuderstadt]

279. I don't think planes in a nosedive are subject to...

"speed limitations", do you? Seriously?

[planeman]

282. thank you for confirming that you have no knowledge of the laws of aerodynamics.

You also forgot that the plane was top heavy with passengers trying to break into the cockpit at the front of the plane.it means that jarrah in order to keep the plane from stalling would have had to pitch up which would have slowed his speed.
Another nail in the coffin of the official story.

[SDuderstadt]

285. Are you claiming that Jarrah was trying to keep the plane from crashing???

Seriously?

[planeman]

289. Get it through your head. you cannot accelerate to 500mph + at msl

without incuring structural damage and loss of control.
yet jarrah controlled the plane until the end.he or 1 of the hijackers is heard on the cvr discussing about putting the plane down.that means jarrah was in control.and you cannot control a plane at 500mph + at msl.the story you believe in just does not make sense.

[SDuderstadt]

Do you understand the concept of temporization?

If the plane was going 500 MPH when it crashed into the ground, does that mean it had to be going the same speed before it nosedived?

[planeman]

296. actually it was flying upside down.another absurdity.

and only a skilled pilot could achieve that.Jarrah was not a skilled pilot.

[AZCat]

298. That's really a ridiculous claim.

I'll give you an opportunity to retract it before posting it above the water cooler here at work, where it will amuse my coworkers.

[planeman]

300. so now flying a boeing 757/767 upside down can be done by anybody.

LOL!

[AZCat]

303. Temporarily, yes.

It's sustaining such flight that becomes difficult.

[planeman]

307. the question is how do you get a plane travel upside down

when you are already travelling at excessive speeds.unless you slow down.


But the terrorists have flipped the plane upside down. They spin it downward.
http://dailyuw.com/2006/4/13/court-hears-flight-93-cockpit-recording/.

[vincent_vega_lives]

346. Sure

if they don't care about the possibiltiy of crashing!

[planeman]

350. but you still have to turn upside down-a practically impossible manouvere

at 560 mph LOL

[vincent_vega_lives]

387. practically, without crashing yes

they crashed.

[planeman]

412. The plane would have lost height immedietly once it reached a 90 degree angle

one wing up-the other down.
and the load factor as the plane was flipping would have been immense.
each square meter of the wing would have had to produce up to 2-3 times the lift in a 70 degree turn(flip) it means jarrah and the passengers he was fighting would have experienced 3-6-7 g's. let alone a 90 degree turn (in order to flip upside down)

impossible.

[Bolo Boffin]

419. My goodness.

It's a wonder we have plane crashes at all.

[planeman]

430. wow a non response if ever there was one.

[Bolo Boffin]

434. Non-response to non-facts and non-arguments n/t

[planeman]

506. it is you that has non facts and none aurguments.

[vincent_vega_lives]

345. many planes hit the ground

at a fraction of the velocity flight 93 did. MOST air crashes are at landing and takeoff where airspeed is between 150 to 200 kts. Flight 93 was moving over 450 kts at the time of impact.

[planeman]

349. and most planes crash on hard runways as opposed to soft dirt

and still dont dissappear like flight 93

[SDuderstadt]

353. You forgot to mention that in....

most crashes, the pilot is actually trying to avoid the crash, not intentionally crashing the plane. Big difference.

[planeman]

357. that is lame excuse and you know it.

many planes crash at even more steeper angles and high speeds like this one;




fl93 crashed at a 45degree angle yet left nothing.pathetic.

[SDuderstadt]

359. I see...

so you don't think there's a difference between a crash in which the pilot sought to avoid it and one in which the pilot deliberately crashed it? Really?

[planeman]

362. stop flinging that" a pilot tries to crash/did not try to crash" crap.

pan am fell to earth from 31000 feet and its impact measured 1.6 on th e richer scale.

yet there were larger pieces of that than fl93.

[SDuderstadt]

365. Now you're saying that the Pan Am flight and fkight 93 were similar?

Really? How is that? Are you even remotely familiar with all the variables that go into what the debris "should look like"? No one here finds your arguments persuasive, least of all me. For some reason, I have trouble accepting claims from someone who claims that a "plane crashing into the ground is a plane crashing into the ground". That's like saying that two cars crashing is two cars crashing, even though one crash involves exccessive speed and the other is a low-speed rear-ender. Your flawed arguments don't seem to be gaining any traction, dude. I'm still waiting to hear your alternative hypothesis. I'm, as I said, all ears.

[planeman]

368. you did not have a problem when mr boffin suggested that soft dirt was like water lol!

fl93 hit soft dirt.
parts of pan am hit soft dirt.
and it measured 1.6 on the richter scale.and the fotographic evidence bears it out.

it is your aurgument that is flawed.
i showed you a foto of a plane crash at 300 knots in the woods of pa


that is a tragic high speed crash dude.
that is the kind of foto of your dreams.

[SDuderstadt]

369. Do you really expect us to believe that the "perps" were so...

incompetent that they forgot to make the crash scene look like a crash scene? Really? BTW, are you really claiming that all plane crashes are at the same impact angle? Do you think all crashes should look the same? BTW, if you're referring to Pan Am 103, aren't you forgetting that it was BLOWN UP over Lockerbie, Scotland? Would you expect the pieces of the plane that fell tpo the ground to resemble a plane crash in which the pilot rammed the jet into the ground?

[planeman]

370. those parts of pan am fell from 31000 feet.

When the wing of Pan Am 103, containing 200,000lb of fuel, smashed into
13 Sherwood Crescent at 500mph, it did so with the force of a small
earthquake, one which registered 1.6 on the Richter scale.
http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20070625/064704.html.

please account for the facts before making baseless accusations.

[SDuderstadt]

371. So, now you're trying to claim that pieces of a plane falling to the ground....

are the same as flying the entire plane into the ground? Really? BTW, what did the wing look like after it "crashed"?

[planeman]

374. did you see the crater it left in the ground.

and that was just the wing-
wheras the whole plane of fl93 caused that little crater!LOL what a joke.

[SDuderstadt]

375. Where's the wing, Planeman?

it doesn't seem to be there. Where'd it go? Do you always provide "proof" that contradicts your claim?

[planeman]

397. I assume it to be right here Mr studerstdt

dont you find it somewhat ironic good sir,that just a portion of the pan am 103 plane made a crater at least 3 times the size of the pathetic fl93 crater.

[SDuderstadt]

455. No...

and it looks like there are just small parts of the wing. Congratulations on disproving your own claim.

[planeman]

508. those wing parts are still bigger than flight 93's equivalent wing parts.

and that pan am crater is much bigger than fl 93's crater.

thanks for showing how you ignore facts.

[SDuderstadt]

510. So what?

Maybe you can show us what the crater should've looked like, Mr. A-Plane-Crashing-is-A-Plane Crashing. I don't expect them to look the same, anymore than I expect buildings designed and constructed differently to collapse the same way.

[planeman]

514. dont try that "so what" crap on me. pan am 103 crashed into the ground

at 500mph
nearly 100mph less than fl93.

yet a portion of pan am's body generated a bigger hole in the ground than the entire body of fl93.what you believe in is a joke ,mate.

[SDuderstadt]

517. So, all plane crashes should look the same?

Really? Even though there are a multitude of variables that determine what the crash scence looks like?

BTW, your command "dont try that 'so what' crap on me" is hysterical. You sound like you need to take anger management classes. Deep breathing also might help. Try counting to ten.

What are you going to do? Remember, you're the one with the goofy claim that no plane crashed in Shanksville. If anyone has something to prove, it's you. Please tell us how the "perps" pulled it off..mate.

[planeman]

521. i was comparing 2 high speed crashes into soft dirt

the goofy claim is how fl93 made such a small impact hole in soft dirt even though it flew into it at an impossible 560 mph.

[vincent_vega_lives]

386. I think if you look into air crashes you will find that comment to be false

Very few are actually on runways

[planeman]

398. well the many planes that have crashed into hills and water leave much

more wreckedge than fl93

[Realityhack]

667. That isn't unusual. Do some research. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

27. "He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote."

When former firefighter Dave Fox arrived at the scene, "He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote. He saw three chunks of torn human tissue. He swallowed hard. 'You knew there were people there, but you couldn't see them,' he says."

What does that say in plain English, rollingrock?

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Do you honestly think Wells Morrison and Faye Hahn are trying to tell us...

...that Flight 93 didn't crash at Shanksville?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

[rollingrock]

31. Again,

there is no physical evidence that Flight 93 ever crashed in Shanksville.

a small white plane, a jet, a global hawk maybe.

But a Boeing 757 airplane? Absolutely no.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Why can't you answer the question? Do you not understand plain English? n/t

[rollingrock]

33. Their words should be clear and self-explanatory

to anyone familiar with basic English that is, lol.

Unless they've been ordered to keep their mouths shut or told to change their stories under threat of job less or bodily harm, then no, they do not believe Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville based on what they saw at the alleged crash site.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. And posts 23-27 - those words are "clear and self-explanatory" as well, aren't they? n/t

[hack89]

37. So then how do you explain the body parts, jet fuel and plane wreckage?

how do you explain the "honeycomb looking stuff" that Morrison saw?

[planeman]

48. and how do you explain what Viola saylor saw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcwJmWWczEM

[hack89]

49. Seeing how she is in a distinct minority

perhaps she is either mistaken, confused or unable to articulated exactly what she saw? And how does her statement in any way contradict all the eyewitness accounts from the crash site?

Yours is a typical truther tactic - ignore the 99 witnesses that undermine your CT while pointing at the single exception. Do you understand that is not the way to conclusively prove anything?

[rollingrock]

76. You are confused, because she was not in the minority

everyone from Fox News reporters to FBI agents and emergency workers said they saw nothing that indicated an airplane the size of a B-757 could have crashed at the site.

[Bolo Boffin]

80. You are continuing to avoid the plain English of Posts 23-27. n/t

[planeman]

109. she saw 3 planes at the crash site. that contradicts the official story.

[hack89]

113. And no one else did.

why is that?

[planeman]

124. your lack of research shows. Dom Di Maggio has interviewed witnesses.

Unlike you.


plane #1 - 'commercial airliner'
plane #2 - small white plane
plane #3 - larger white plane

plane #3 is not susan mcelwains plane which is plane #2.
my numbering system is based on their arrival at the scene.

plane #2 was witnessed by susan, rick chaney, viola , and i am in contact with 2 other witnesses to it.

plane #3 was witnessed by viola, bob blair, doug miller. bob said he wouldn't call it a fighter jet but said it was definitely a military plane. doug told me the fbi told him it was a c130 but doug also denied it having any propellers. both men had this plane pass over their heads at treetop level while at the crash site. this was several minutes after the explosion.

by the time bob & doug arrived at the scene the plane #2 was finished and at a higher altitude that they did not even notice it. this is when #3 arrived and as it was leaving is when viola came back outside to see it leaving the scene from the treetop level bob and doug described to me. that is when viola noticed the little plane, #2, at a much higher altitude leaving the scene heading off in the opposite direction .

[hack89]

133. And what does this have to do with human remains, wreckage and jet fuel

found at the crash site? They all reported a plane crash did they not?

As for the two planes - one was a Fairchild Falcon 20 business jet ask to investigate the crash. Plane 3 could have been the C-130 in the area

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

143. So Doug Miller was mistaken

perfectly reasonable considering the stress he was under.

[planeman]

144. no you are mistaken perfectly reasonable given the stress you are under.

[hack89]

148. You don't bother me that much

don't forget - this is old hat for me. Truthers haven't produced a new "fact" in three or four years. It is more a matter of rote routine than any thing else.

[planeman]

153. so why respond? i obviously do bother you.your ignorance bothers me.

and i will beat your ignorance into the ground.

[hack89]

253. Oh well - I guess I will learn to live with your obvious intellectual superiority. nt

[planeman]

266. for once you speak the truth.

[Bolo Boffin]

284. Oh, brother. n/t

[AZCat]

295. His ego is only dwarfed by his ignorance.

Quite fascinating, really.

[planeman]

297. nice description of yourself.

[Twist_U_Up]

499. you remarking on someones ego is "quite fascinating".

This guy smokes you and your ilk and alls you have left are smears.
As usual your ego has gotten the best of you.

[spooked911]

480. thousands?

do you have a source?

perhaps-- PERHAPS-- a thousand people searched the fields and woods for planted debris.

but how many actually worked in the crater?

[Twist_U_Up]

500. Thousands ? Got a link?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

36. I used to think that Art Bell was the most gullible person in America

See? I'm willing to be proven wrong. All it takes is convincing evidence.

[defendandprotect]

39. Every time I see Barbara Olson's name -- and Ted Olson's . . .

I wonder . . .

One of the things I wonder is if Barbara Olson may have been another Margaret Mitchell?


It is an interesting footnote that United flight 93 was not scheduled to fly on 9/11, and that the plane (tail number N5IUA) was spotted by United Airline’s employee David Friedman on April 10, 2003 at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, and that the plane is listed as still valid with the FAA. Dylan Avery provided essential information used in this article in his documentary "9/11 Loose Change."


Here's another interesting one . .

9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that

AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones.

After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. The first picture at this link is of an passenger-seat phone recovered at 93's crash site.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Make7]

41. I imagine this explains why you so infrequently post links.

The information in your first link completely contradicts your post title.

It is probably best to just keep posting claims without providing links that may demonstrate that your assertions are incorrect.
 

[defendandprotect]

40. Additionally, everyone arriving on the scene said "nothing there" . . .

[Bolo Boffin]

44. As posts 23-27 show, that statement simply isn't true. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Proof of whatever it is you claim will be the turning point in your thinking

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page2

1) The four hijackers purchased tickets under their own names and boarded the plane. One was randomly selected for and passed additional security screening. Ziad Jarrah was a licensed pilot and had recent training on professional large jet flight simulators. United flight 93 was scheduled to depart at 8:00 am, but left 42 minutes late due to airport traffic. Aboard were 33 passengers, 7 crew members, and 4 hijackers.

2) Several passengers and crew called from the plane, spoke with loved ones, described the hijackers' attack, and related their plan to try to retake the plane so that it would not be used as a suicide weapon against a populated area. All but two of these calls were made using the plane's seatback Airfones.

3) The cockpit voice recorder recorded the hijackers' attack and apparent murder of the pilots and a flight attendant. Air traffic controllers heard a radio transmission by a man with an Arabic accent, warning of a bomb on board. Passengers reported that one of the hijackers had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to him.

4) After learning about the other attacks, passengers and cabin crew attempted to retake the cockpit but were apparently unable to gain entry. The sound of their attempts was recorded on the CVR. The CVR also recorded the hijackers' decision to end the flight, followed by repeated shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest.") until the plane crashed. Families of victims heard the CVR recording.

5) Flight 93 was tracked by radar until it went down.

6) Many people in Pennsylvania saw the Boeing 757, traveling at low altitude and high speed, roll to the right and plummet upside-down, nose first, towards the ground. Many people witnessed the subsequent enormous explosion and fireball. Val McClatchey photographed the mushroom cloud.

7) Hundreds of first responders (mostly volunteer firefighters) and crime scene investigators were quickly on the scene. They saw human remains, aircraft wreckage, personal effects, jet fuel, etc.
The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were recovered and had usable data, all of which is consistent with the other evidence.

8) The remains of every victim was positively identified. Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller personally collected many remains and made 12 identifications through fingerprints and dental records. Personal effects of most passengers and crew were recovered and returned to their families.

9) Hijacker identification documents and personal effects were recovered, along with the remains of four people identified as the hijackers through the process of elimination.

10) Nearly all of the aircraft was recovered by professional investigators and by civilians. The debris was returned to United Airlines after being examined for evidence of explosives use.

[William Seger]

29. Jeeez, is March National Truth Movement Dead Horse Month?

More: http://911debunker.livejournal.com/7467.html

[planeman]

46. is that all you have.

[William Seger]

81. It's enough

... to show why Spooky's implied argumentum ad ignorantium is illogical.

But no, there's no reason to assume that this particular photo shows all of the debris that was recovered. It just proves that "a lot" of debris was recovered. Would it really change your mind if photos surfaced that showed more?

[planeman]

108. it actually proves that very little was recovered relative to other plane crashes.

[Matsuflex]

156. Do you think a lot is going to recovered

from a plane that crashes at 500 mph? In fact I think it crashed closer to 600 mph.

[planeman]

429. pan am crashed into the ground at 500mph and far larger pieces were found.

[SDuderstadt]

457. The plane wasn't intact when it hit the ground...

it was blown up in mid-air. Why you think it is strange that it would have larger pieces is beyond me.

[planeman]

666. So objects of larger mass leave smaller signs of impact?!!!

If only parts of pan am 103 fell to the ground-how did they leave larger craters than a fully intact 757(fl93)?

You really dont understand physics do you?

[William Seger]

209. How does it "prove" any such thing? (n/t)

[planeman]

428. Umm it proves that very little of flight 93 has been recovered no matter what our

goverment tells us.

[William Seger]

438. Do you know what the word "prove" means?

If so, please prove to me that the photo shows all of the debris that was recovered.

[planeman]

579. LOL- we both know the voyeuristic media would have shown every once

of truly recognizable debris HAD THERE REALLY BEEN ANY ON 911 ITSELF or shortly after.

not that pathetic fuselage fragment released 6 years AFTER the event-which could have been taken in some spook's back garden.

[vincent_vega_lives]

265. Hmm I wonder

what the airspeed of that aircraft was when it impacted the ground/ I would be it was a lot less than flight 93, which was traveling at near max airspeed for the altitude it was at.

[spooked911]

481. what do you think this shows?

do you think it's proof that 80% of the plane was in the ground?

[William Seger]

492. Nope, and I didn't say it did

But what it proves is that "a lot" of debris was recovered, even though we don't know at what stage of the recovery that photo was taken. The "proof that 80% of the plane was in the ground" is that it doesn't appear to have been on top of the ground, or any logical reason to think it should be after hitting that loose soft dirt at that speed. Of course, that's not a real proof, but you're just playing games with your challenge, anyway -- a classic argumentum ad ignorantiam -- so I can play it too. At the very least, you'd need some other reason to think UA93 didn't crash there before the amount of debris you can see in a few photos on the web would become any serious concern. You don't have any, other than the inconvenient fact that the crash of UA93 screws up most 9/11 conspiracy theories; so you're pretty much forced into spinning yarns about how "fishy" that is too, and hope that nobody notices that you haven't yet come up with any plausible reason why the alleged conspirators would have faked that crash, and then have to get rid of the plane and the passengers anyway.

[SDuderstadt]

30. This is the kind of bullshit you get when...

you try to engage with "truthers" who are so challenged by nuance, that they think a plane crash in which the pilot deliberately slammed it into the ground at an extremely high rate of speed should look identical to an ordinary plane crash in which the pilot was doing everything within his/her power to actually avoid the crash or, at least, lessen the impact. This is why it's useless to try to reason with hardcore "truthers' and why they embarrass us liberals so much.

[BeFree]

38. did you hear?

They just found the WMD in Iraq.






No, not really. But to have heard and read all the press about it, you just knew it had to be true, that Iraq had WMD. Well, it's not true anymore.

But they had eyewitnesses! They had satellite photos! All the proof ever needed, they had it, and so we invaded. Just saying.

[rollingrock]

42. Yes, because the government is such a reliable source of information

Iraq had WMDs, Saddam was responsible for 9/11, global arming doesn't exist,
Bush II was a great president, yada yada.

...and yes, I'm the pope.

[hack89]

50. So the coroner from a small Pennsylvania county

plus all the local first responders are "the government" and are in on the conspiracy?

Got it.

[BeFree]

51. Well

Look at how many dumbasses believed that WMD were in Iraq, and it gives you an idea about how easily people are fooled.

If you read the responses from the first people on the scene, you see that confusion reigned. And knowing that crooks take advantage of confusion to get away, it should come as no surprise that questions arise.

The question is: why would anyone want the questioning to end?

[hack89]

52. They were at the scene

they saw the wreckage, smelled the jet fuel, and picked up the body parts. And I am expected to believe a truther that was never there that these eyewitnesses are lying? I don't think so.

When your questioning depends on cherry picking witnesses and ignoring those that disagree with then why should I take you seriously?

[BeFree]

54. Lying? Nah

They were just confused. Wasn't it the coroner who at first said there was nothing to do?

But why this incessant need to stop questioning what occurred?
What is being hidden? Why is it being hidden? If there is nothing to hide and there was no confusion, then why is stuff still being hid and confusion still reigns?

[Bolo Boffin]

55. It was the coroner who spent every waking hour at the site until he'd collected every human remain

possible, and then oversaw the process of IDing them against the DNA samples provided by family members.

You have to speak to someone you trust to end the confusion you feel.

[AZCat]

56. Ahh, so the people who were there were "just confused".

Confused enough to mistake body parts? Wally Miller collected quite a few, the largest of which was a part of someone's spine (IIRC). He ended up identifying a dozen of the victims from dental records and other means. Are you claiming that he incorrectly identified these pieces of people?

[BeFree]

57. Ok, no one was confused?

I read all the comments and the one string was that everyone was confused. Who wouldn't have been confused? Are you saying everyone immediately knew what was happening and they all knew exactly what to do at that moment?

Actually, seems to me the bodies were all blown to bits. Maybe that happens with every crash? Or was it just this one?

Anyway, I know if I had just arrived at the scene of an incident like that, I would have been quite confused, and would still be somewhat confused even today.

[AZCat]

58. It seems that you are taking the confusion one would expect...

for such an event and misunderstanding the effect. Confusion over the chaotic crash site does not translate to confusion over whether there was actually a crash. Wally Miller, for example, seems to have been surprised to find no intact bodies at the site. This does not mean he didn't find any body parts, nor does it mean he doubts whether there was a crash. On the contrary, he seems quite satisfied with the evidence.

[BeFree]

59. I see now

Yall have cherry picked comments to prove the case, while ignoring any evidence that doesn't conform to the set idea. Just like we saw people do with WMD in Iraq.

On that, I am not confused.

[AZCat]

60. How exactly have I been cherry-picking comments?

Isn't it reasonable to look at the whole of, for example, Wally Miller's comments and experience, rather than a single quote?

[Bolo Boffin]

61. This is just BeFree mimicking actual critiques of the Truth Movement.

He or she doesn't intend to actually be offering these comments as a critique. This is just a silly game to him and her.

[AZCat]

65. I am a victim of Poe's Law.

I can't tell the difference anymore.

[BeFree]

67. Nope, Wrong again, Bolo

I am serious as can be. You won't find any ROFLs in any other posts of mine, nor will you find snide off-hand remarks about someone besides those who I am directly responding to.

I am right up front, unlike you who consistently provides evidence of your sillyness and ignoring of the matters being discussed with rofls and snide backhanded comments.

Why don't you just put me on ignore? That way you won't be so bothered with my questioning?

For those who have Bolo on ignore:
Bolo attacks Befree again, but not directly..."He or she doesn't intend to actually be offering these comments as a critique. This is just a silly game to him and her."

[Bolo Boffin]

68. BeFree, this isn't about you. This is about the facts and the evidence.

And your accusation of cherry-picking is factually inaccurate. You and others carefully choose the quotes you wish. But a greater sampling of the quotes from people there show that there was plenty of evidence of Flight 93 all over. The way people twist Wally Miller's words is especially egregious because of the work he did in identifying the victims. Yet his initial impression (relayed by him to convey a sense of the overwhelming destruction) is twisted and even misquoted by you to pretend he had nothing to do.

Less concentrating on your games, more concentrating on the facts and the logic.

[BeFree]

71. That's stupid

I said that Miller was confused. I didn't say he was lying. All I did was use the quote attributed to him to show how confusing the situation must have been.

Those are the facts and that is the logic that you willfully ignore and yet twist.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. And after he IDed the human remains at the site, did he remain confused enough

to keep pushing the "false belief" that 93 crashed there? Was he so mixed up after all that work that the government could keep using him to fool people?

ETA: Oops, time to bring up your weapons of mass distraction again.

[spooked911]

476. is it really so hard to see how he could have been fooled by planted remains?

or that maybe he was a plant?

Clearly 9/11 was a well-planned op.

[Bolo Boffin]

487. I know you're arguing from ignorance about how this crash could have been staged

And thus you think this crash could have been staged, and you even float the idea that Miller is lying.

But staging that site was impossible. People were there almost immediately. Are all of these people in on it?

On 9/11 alone, these included: • 8 Police Departments • 7 EMS Services • 8 Fire Departments • 10 Emergency Management Agencies • NTSB • ATF • FBI • CISM • Red Cross • United Airlines

Volunteers on the first day -- Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company, Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company, Central City Fire Department, Berlin Fire Department, Friedens Volunteer Fire Department, Listie Volunteer Fire Company, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department, Somerset Ambulance Association, Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the Hooversville Rescue Squad.

"Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company Assistant Fire Chief Rick King and three firefighters were the first responders on the scene with an engine and a tanker. Shanksville Fire Chief Terry Shaffer also responded from 10 minutes away.

While enroute to the scene, there was a concern for the potential of large numbers of casualties. Chief Shaffer requested additional ambulances and EMS units dispatched to the scene. Two ambulances from outside the county were also alerted but were placed in service while responding. 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. Federal authorities, including the FBI and NTSB, arrived relatively quickly to secure the site and begin the evidence collection and body recovery process."

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1

Were all of these people plants?

[BeFree]

62. Sure

But you are ignoring the historic situation of the WMD in Iraq and how people were persuaded to believe lies and the comparison to how this case has played out. Why? Why not respond to that? Why ignore it? Is it not true anymore?

[AZCat]

63. I'm not sure of the relevance to our particular argument.

Please explain how the WMD in Iraq fiasco relates to Wally Miller's experience as a coroner for the Flight 93 crash site.



On Edit: I'm asking for clarification because I don't want to make assumptions about your argument. The discussion is difficult enough without additional confusion.

[BeFree]

69. It's a holistic approach

I don't have any qualm with what Miller is reported to have said. I feel for him and all the first responders. I would have hard time doing what they did.

What I am getting at is that the mass persuasion (lies) that occurred with the WMD is the same sort of persuasion that has occurred in the whole 9/11 situation.

[AZCat]

72. It is?

I don't see the connection, but I think I'm missing something here. What do you mean by "holistic approach" and how does that change your interpretation of Wally Miller's experiences?

[Bolo Boffin]

70. WMDs in Iraq has NOTHING TO DO with whether Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania.

It's a distraction tactic. Less distracting, more dealing with the evidence on topic.

[hack89]

64. Why would they stay confused?

isn't a hallmark of a professional first responder to quickly make sense of a chaotic disaster scene so they can do their jobs? OK - their first response was confusion. What reason do you have to believe they are still confused over what they saw? Wouldn't spending hours, days, months at the scene tend to make one very certain what happened?

As for the condition of the remains - yes it does make sense. The velocity component of the KE equation is squared. The energy involved in a plane hitting the ground at 560 mph is incredibly greater than a plane crashing at 200 mph during takeoff/landing. Look at the accident reports from the Egypt Air Flight 990, Swissair Flight 111 or the Challenger disaster - there were no intact bodies. It is estimated that the Swissair crash subjected the victims to 350 g at impact.

[AZCat]

66. It's also probably worth noting...

that at a 40 degree angle, a significant component of that velocity vector goes into the ground.

[William Seger]

84. "... somewhat confused even today."

Many conspiracists have attempted to find people involved in the cleanup who are "confused even today." But there's a reason why all the "Flight 93 didn't crash here" sites still only contain first-impression quotes from that first day: They couldn't find anyone who was actually involved who doubts that Flight 93 crashed there. (However, it does seem that there are a lot of people around Shanksville still believe an incompatible theory: that it was shot down, which itself is incompatible with the theory that it landed in Chicago.)

[planeman]

47. A plane crashing into the ground is a plane crashing into the ground.

Besides in the case of flight 93 the passengers were in the cockpit and i guess that they were trying to raise the plane not crash it into the ground which makes it even more strange that flight 93 dissapeared into the ground.

[hack89]

53. Your understanding of basic physics is appalling

I suggest you look at the velocity component of the KE equation and explain to me why every plane crash will look the same.

Flt 93 hit at 560 mph at a 40 degree nose down, inverted attitude - that's why it "disappeared into the ground."

[rollingrock]

74. Physics 101

If a Boeing 757 somehow managed to 'disappear' into the ground, the hole would have been much deeper than it was. The length of Boeing 757 is 155 feet. The depth of a the hole was no more than 20-25 feet at the most. Sorry, but 155 feet of airplane does not and cannot fit into a 20 foot deep hole.

[AZCat]

75. You do realize that an aircraft is hollow, right?

The airframe didn't stay intact after impact.

[rollingrock]

77. Then where is the air frame??

[Matsuflex]

102. In a million pieces.

Would you expect it to be intact after hitting at those speeds?

[rollingrock]

170. You're wrong buddy

that there plane flew right on threw to China.

[Matsuflex]

189. Again what the heck are you talking about?

You conspiracy theorists are so confusing. Speak English and not Chinese.

[rollingrock]

78. What a nose-dive airplane crash looks like

An Airbus A310 widebody slams into the ground nose first,
visible debris is strewn everywhere.






Date: March 23, 1994
Location: Near Mezhdurechensk, Russia
Aircraft: Airbus A310-304
Reg: F-OGQS
Airline: Russian International Airways
Flight No: 593
Fatalities: 75 : 75

The aircraft crashed after a captain allowed his child to manipulate the controls of the plane. The pilot's 11 year old daughter and 16 year old son were taking turns in the pilot's seat. While the boy was flying, he inadvertently disengaged the autopilot linkage to the ailerons and put the airliner in a bank of 90 degrees which caused the nose to drop sharply. The co-pilot pulled back on the yoke to obtain level flight but the plane stalled. With his seat pulled all the way back, the co-pilot in the right hand seat could not properly control the aircraft. After several stalls and rapid pull-ups the plane went into a spiral descent and crashed.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w19940323.htm


An Airbus A310 commercial widebody

[Bolo Boffin]

79. Find the ValuJet.

Hey, here's an idea -- why don't you deal with all the evidence of Flight 93 at the Shankville site?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page2
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page3

[rollingrock]

82. The Self-Sealing Shanksville Hole

If a 75 ton 155ft object burrowed through the ground here, the hole would not self-seal itself and look like an object just hit and bounced off the surface at a 40deg angle.

No Boeing 757 crashed here:

----------------
And now for a rebuttal from Texas George!

Best southern redneck blowhard accent.

Now lookie hear, ya need ta think here boi. Ya see them planes are really made o tough stuff these days. Since them planes flew right threw steel sky scrapie buildings, then don it stand ta reason, ...... that this un hear just flew right on threw to China?

Course that damn ground sealed up nice and tight, boi. Use your head now.

[Bolo Boffin]

85. ""The remains of a number of passengers had been found in all five [search] sectors." n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

86. "I walked up to where the tire was on fire, probably a hundred feet past the crater." n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

87. "That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear..."

n/t

[rollingrock]

165. Did somene say landing gear?

[hack89]

262. I never understood the Global Hawk

what role did it have?

[Bolo Boffin]

88. "I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail..." n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

89. "He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote." n/t

[AZCat]

90. I don't see where it says the crash was nose down.

Nor do I see any information on the velocity at impact. Unless you can provide additional information, this is not a valid comparison.

[William Seger]

83. Crater dynamics are not covered in Physics 101

If you'd ever taken Physics 101, you'd know that. And if you'd ever actually studied crater dynamics, you might understand why that soft, loose dirt could have swallowed the plane.

But speaking of physics, I'm still waiting for someone to answer this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=189055&mesg_id=238409

[spooked911]

91. I gave an answer

probably not what you wanted

[William Seger]

93. Feel free to assume the best possible case

Assume that the brick hits squarely in the center of the table, so the force of the impact is equally distributed to all four legs.

If you don't think the table will collapse, don't just assert that; please give your reasoning (as I will when I give mine).

[Matsuflex]

99. It didn't 'disappear' into the ground

There was a similar crash in Colorado involving a United Airlines Boeing. I think it was a 737. The plane hit nose first and totally broke up, but it only left a similar crater depth. I believe the engines were found embedded under the crater which would be expected since they are heavier and stronger.

[AZCat]

101. Are you thinking of Flight 585?

Wikipedia article on UA585.

[Matsuflex]

105. That's the one. Left similar size crater.

Relevant part from PDF linked from the wiki page...

1.4 Other Damage

There was no damage to structures on the ground. Trees adjacent to the impact crater were damaged by flying debris and soot, and nearby patches of grass north and northeast of the crater were scorched. The size of the impact crater measured approximately 39 feet by 24 feet and was about 15 deep. http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR92-06.pdf


Some trees were broken at the Shanksville site, patches of the grass was scorched, and the crater dimensions were practically the same.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

110. Care to provide proof of your claim?

Generally speaking, unfounded assertions are not given much credibility. Perhaps you could explain how you arrived at your conclusion? (the 560 mph at msl claim, not the "moron" one)

[hack89]

115. So "moron" is NOT an unfounded assertion? LOL nt

[AZCat]

122. I thought the veracity (or lack of) was plainly obvious.

More obvious, at least, than his other claim.

[planeman]

117. no problem. what does 360 kts ias mean to you.

vnavspeed


Posts: n/a

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are half correct re the UK;

767 360 kts IAS / 0.84 IMN
757 350 kts IAS / 0.84 IMN

Where do you fly and what are your limits? We all know the A/C are capable of higher figures as per Boeing specs. Other countries in Europe will use different (often higher) figures.

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/9961-b767-vmo-mmo-uk.html

[AZCat]

121. I don't find that particularly convincing.

Regulatory limitations are not the same thing as physical limitations.

[planeman]

127. got proof for that? link please.

[AZCat]

128. Are you kidding me?! It should be quite obvious. n/t

[planeman]

132. so you do not have a link .i am not surprised.

[AZCat]

139. Ah, yes - because without a link, the world stops turning.

Fortunately, the universe is not required to function according to the whims of the ignorant.

[planeman]

145. show me the link that a boeing 767 regulatory and physical limits are 2 different things.

I am patient.I can wait.
But you dont have a link do you.it is there for all to see.

[AZCat]

152. Gosh, I guess I've lost this argument!

Gee, planeman, you've found my Achilles' Heel! My failure to produce an internet link that proves something so bloody fucking obvious will be the downfall of the entire so-called "Official Conspiracy Theory"! :eyes:

[planeman]

154. for once you are right.you have lost.still no link? LOL!

[AZCat]

162. Your excessive reliance on the internet as a source of information is quite illuminating. n/t

[planeman]

167. that is why people should not rely on you as a source.you cannot even back yourself up

LOL!!!

[AZCat]

169. Your logic, as usual, is flawed. n/t

[planeman]

173. Link please from boeing.i can ask all day.

[Make7]

178. Wouldn't the FAA be the regulatory agency for commercial aircraft? ( n/t )

[planeman]

185. would it?possibly.maybe you can provide me a link showing the distinction thank you.

[Make7]

193. Apparently you can't go faster than 250 KIAS below 10,000 ft MSL.

 

Sec. 91.117

Aircraft speed.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).
(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph). This paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor designated through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).
(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.

rgl.faa.gov

 

[planeman]

197. but can you go faster than 360?find me that rule that says you can

thank you.

[Make7]

204. You can't go FASTER than 250 KIAS. 360 is more than 250. ( n/t )

[AZCat]

208. Link?

(just kidding) :)

[planeman]

210. that is only to avoid air collisons.you know that,

now show me the rule where you can fly faster than 360 kts at msl.
thanks you.

[Make7]

214. I showed you the regulation. You cannot go over 250 KIAS below 10,000 ft MSL. ( n/t )

[Make7]

244. It is clearly stated in FAR Sec. 25.253.

Sec. 25.253

High-speed characteristics.

(a) Speed increase and recovery characteristics. The following speed increase and recovery characteristics must be met:
(1) Operating conditions and characteristics likely to cause inadvertent speed increases (including upsets in pitch and roll) must be simulated with the airplane trimmed at any likely cruise speed up to V_MO/M_MO. These conditions and characteristics include gust upsets, inadvertent control movements, low stick force gradient in relation to control friction, passenger movement, leveling off from climb, and descent from Mach to airspeed limit altitudes.
(2) Allowing for pilot reaction time after effective inherent or artificial speed warning occurs, it must be shown that the airplane can be recovered to a normal altitude and its speed reduced to V_MO/M_MO, without --
(i) Exceptional piloting strength or skill;
(ii) Exceeding V_D/M_D, V_DF/M_DF, or the structural limitations; and
(iii) Buffeting that would impair the pilot's ability to read the instruments or control the airplane for recovery.
(3) With the airplane trimmed at any speed up to V_MO/M_MO, there must be no reversal of the response to control input about any axis at any speed up to V_DF/M_DF. Any tendency to pitch, roll, or yaw must be mild and readily controllable, using normal piloting techniques. When the airplane is trimmed at V_MO/M_MO, the slope of the elevator control force versus speed curve need not be stable at speeds greater than V_FC/M_FC, but there must be a push force at all speeds up to V_DF/M_DF and there must be no sudden or excessive reduction of elevator control force as V_DF/M_DF is reached.
[(b) Maximum speed for stability characteristics. V_FC/M_FC. V_FC/M_FC is the maximum speed at which the requirements of Sec. Sec. 25.143(g), 25.147(E),
25.175(b)(1), 25.177, and 25.181 must be met with flaps and landing gear retracted. Except as noted in Sec. 25.253(c), V_FC/M_FC may not be less than a speed midway between V_MO/M_MO and V_DF/M_DF, except that for altitudes where Mach number is the limiting factor, M_FC need not exceed the Mach number at which effective speed warning occurs.
(c) Maximum speed for stability characteristics in icing conditions. The maximum speed for stability characteristics with the ice accretions defined in appendix C, at which the requirements of Sec. Sec. 25.143(g), 25.147(e), 25.175(b)(1), 25.177, and 25.181 must be met, is the lower of:
(1) 300 knots CAS;
(2) V_FC; or
(3) A speed at which it is demonstrated that the airframe will be free of ice accretion due to the effects of increased dynamic pressure.]

rgl.faa.gov

[planeman]

217. that 250 kts is an faa regulation to avoid accidents.the 360 is to avoid incuring aerodynamic stress

[AZCat]

219. Of course suicidal hijackers are concerned about aerodynamic stress in the airframe...

when they're planning on crashing the plane. :eyes:


Oh, and the 250 kts limit isn't just for accident avoidance - it's also for noise levels.

[planeman]

222. But the hijackers had no experience in controling planes that exceeded

the VNE of the aircraft.
And they need to control the aircraft to guide them to their targets(WTC + Pentagon+ abandoned strip mine)

As you saw with lauda plane .lack of control leads to excessive speed.excessive speed leads to break up.except on 911.

[AZCat]

231. Nope.

See, this is where your misunderstanding of the Lauda Air accident interferes with your interpretation of other events. The Lauda Air B-757 ripped apart because of a combination of buffering, excessive speed, and maneuvering overload. The excessive speed was because the aircraft stalled and then dropped like a rock. The buffering and maneuvering overload were caused by the deployed thrust reverser's effect on the aerodynamics of the airframe, combined with the excessive speed . What you don't seem to understand is that this has no application to the events of September 11th because none of the aircraft had deployed thrust reversers. Had the thrust reverser not been deployed and the Lauda Air flight bizarrely performed the same stall and descent, it might not have broken up in flight (although it would be quite risky to try).

Regardless, your example is irrelevant.

[planeman]

236. LOL! whether a plane reaches excessive speed due to stalling

or because of added thrust makes no difference to the fact that once a plane reaches its VNE or exceeds it is subject to aerodynamic stress.And it runs the risk of breaking apart.

BTW
You made the following up:

"The buffering and maneuvering overload were caused by the deployed thrust reverser's effect on the aerodynamics of the airframe"

The damage to the plane was the result of buffering and manoeuvering adn excessive speed.
What caused the excessive speed is moot and you know it.

[AZCat]

238. Of course it doesn't matter.

But it is important to note, because it illustrates the effect of the deployed thrust reverser at speeds less than V_ne.

I made it up? No, I just understand aerodynamics a lot better than you. And I can read.

[planeman]

241. talk about a straw man aurgument.

I am talking about the effect of excessive speed on an aircraft.
And I am correct in doing so.
You are trying to obscure that point by focusing on the reverse thruster(which caused the aircraft to lose control and thus gain excessive speed).

[AZCat]

245. Your arguments would be more persuasive if they made sense.

They do not, however. The deployed thrust reverser is essential in understanding the buffeting and maneuvering overloads.

[planeman]

247. you can concentrate on the reverse thruster all you want dude.

excessive speed is excessive speed.
and you know it
It damages aircraft
that is why boeing imposes 360 kts as VNE.
that is a fact.deal with it.

[AZCat]

249. Ahh, the banality of generalities.

It must be nice to live in such a simple world. The rest of us, however, understand that such a primitive understanding of aerodynamics is insufficient to make the sort of claims of which you seem so fond. Perhaps that's why you so often fail when trying to apply your knowledge (what there is of it) to the real world.

Good luck with your fantasies.

[planeman]

271. a plane incurs aerodynamic stress above 360 knots at sea level

that is a fact,

Russ wittenberg flew the plane that was alledged to have crashed in shanksville.

RUSS WITTENBERG: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11... Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots

i will gladly take his word over you any time good sir.

[AZCat]

292. No shit, sherlock.

The question is how much stress in relation to the strength of the airframe. You have yet to provide any substantive proof of the result of flying at 360+ kts at msl. All we've seen is lots of handwaving and an example concerning a deployed thrust reverser which doesn't apply here.

[planeman]

299. so why do you think 360 kts is the max speed imposed by boeing,Sherlock

jeez if a plane could fly faster than 450kts...you would think that would be its max operating speed.

[SDuderstadt]

302. Do you understand the difference between "falling" and "flying"?

How is a plane in a nosedive "flying"?

[Name removed]

308. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

306. I don't know, maybe they're concerned about...

reliability and risk?

[planeman]

318. actually they are concerned about about aerodynamic stress.

[AZCat]

332. Duh.

Why do you think I listed reliability?

[planeman]

336. because you had no other choice .360kts is imposed for a reason.

[AZCat]

342. I had no other choice?

What a strange way of putting it.

[planeman]

364. yes you had no other choice other than to build a straw man

aurgument that the reverese thrusters damaged the plane.
indirectly they did
the caused a lack of control which caused excessive speed.

but you say that the reverse thruster affected the airframe?
what a load of rubbish.and you know it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

394. And life if the airframe

more aerodynamic stress = inecreased lifecycle costs.

[William Seger]

356. That's actually an easy question to answer

> "so why do you think 360 kts is the max speed imposed by boeing,Sherlock"

Because Boeing designed and tested it to be safe at that speed. But nobody tests their planes up to the point that they start falling apart -- they would have a hard time hiring test pilots for that. The simple reason you won't find anything authoritative about the "maximum" speed of a 757 or 767 on the web is that nobody really knows, except what we know from empirical evidence like what happened on 9/11.

[planeman]

360. gosh darn every-one saw 9/11 including boeing.

thanks to 9/11 they now know that a boeing can be controlled and flown with precison at 450kts.
why dont they alter the 360 limit then.
the fact is seagar that you know nothing of the laws of aerodynamics.
how much extra thrust would be needed to attain a speed of 450kts at sea level.calculation please.

[William Seger]

367. LOL, you're not doing so well, are you

Actually, I do happen to know a little about aerodynamics, and what luck, that happens to be one of them. In level flight, the total drag will vary with the square of the velocity, and the thrust necessary to overcome that drag will vary with the cube of the velocity. Unfortunately, your question is too poorly formed to have an answer: "how much extra thrust" compared to what?

And even more unfortunately, we're not talking about level flight.

[planeman]

372. "Drag will vary"-LOFL!!

you did not have enough guts to say it dear mr seagar.

If the speed doubles - the Drag doubles .
and if you want to double the airspeed you need 3 times the power.

so where are you going to get 3 times the amount of power from?-your dreams.

[hack89]

380. So you need the same thrust to maintain speed in a dive

as you do in level flight? Interesting - don't planes go faster in a dive for a given level of thrust then they do in level flight? Or is gravity somehow a non-factor?

[planeman]

401. the thrust can be retarded to idle in a dive.

but if you are in a dive and you apply more thrust the plane will eventually rise.
you of course would have to compensate by pushing forward on the yoke.but could you control the plane at the same time?i doubt it.

[hack89]

440. How much control do you need to deliberately crash into the ground?

and why would it eventually rise? That makes no sense.

[planeman]

525. if you are pulling 6-7 g's i doubt an inexperienced hijacker would even have been consciouse.

yet this hijacker was probably pulling 6-7 g's yet was still yelling "allah ho akbar"

LOL!

[hack89]

527. Why do you think he was pulling 6-7 gs?

I would love to see where you pulled that figure from.

[planeman]

572. if you bank at an angle of 80 degrees the wing has to produce

6 times the lift - the loading on the wings is 6 times the weight that it would be in level flight-Jarrah would have expereienced 6 times the weight of his own body being exerted from his seat.

that is 6 g's mate...and its heavy shit.especially for someone like ziad jarrah who had no experience of flying under those conditions.

and the plane would have had to gone through an 80 degree bank to turn upside down
the official story is bull mate

[hack89]

587. Again, care to actually provide some proof? nt

[planeman]

601. THE AIRPLANE TECHNICAL-air-pilot manual- page 135

[hack89]

604. Since I don't the book in front of me

do you have another source?

[planeman]

632. no-you must do your own research.

[Make7]

588. Tex Johnston has a slightly different view...

 

Boeing 707 does a roll

Tex Johnston: "...it's a 1g manuver. It's absolutely non-hazardous, but it's very impressive." (1:26)
 

[planeman]

605. a rather poor comparison mr7-Tex ended up at higher altitude after his roll

was completed.

Ziad Jarrah did a roll and descended.hardly an example of a balanced 1 g roll is it Mr7?

[Make7]

620. Did you not see the 707 turn upside down during a 1g maneuver?

 

planeman wrote:

if you bank at an angle of 80 degrees the wing has to produce 6 times the lift - the loading on the wings is 6 times the weight that it would be in level flight-Jarrah would have expereienced 6 times the weight of his own body being exerted from his seat.

    -snip-

and the plane would have had to gone through an 80 degree bank to turn upside down

So the fact that Tex Johnston turned a commercial jet upside down without exceeding 1g doesn't demonstrate that what you had previously written was nonsense?

I honestly can't get enough of your "expertise" - it is an amazing thing to behold.
 

[planeman]

623. Mr(or Miss)7 could you describe how you flip a plane upside down

without exceeding 1 g's .
Then compare that to the flight data recorder of fl93

[Make7]

636. When you imply something isn't possible and it actually is possible...

... people might begin to think you don't know what you're talking about.

You claim that "if you bank at an angle of 80 degrees the wing has to produce 6 times the lift". That is simply incorrect, a well done barrel roll doesn't come anywhere close to 6g's during the maneuver, yet the plane must have been at a 80 degree bank angle at least twice to be successfully performed.

I am not saying that an alleged hijacker on Flight 93 did a barrel roll, or that the aircraft never exceeded 1g. What I am saying is that your claim about 6g's is obviously incorrect. If you believe that Flight 93 experienced 6g's, you should be able to show where that happened in the FDR data. Shouldn't you?
 

[planeman]

657. You obviously dont understand the laws of aerodynamics.

The bank angle at 80 degrees which induces the 6 g load is performed in level flight.Under those conditions you cannot perform an upside down manouver without incuring a number of g's.

[Make7]

664. So you believe that UA93 was in level flight when it turned upside down?

You seem to be saying that you think that 6 or 7 g's would have been encountered by erroneously comparing UA93's flight to a plane doing a turn at a severe bank angle while maintianing level flight.

Do you honestly believe that UA93 was not losing altitude when it went upside down? Do you really think it was in the middle of a 6 or 7 g turn?

:eyes:
 

[planeman]

670. mr7,i dont believe the plane turned upside down

niether do the verifiable witnesses to the crash;
Mrs. Pluta said she did not believe the plane had rolled over. She was shielded by trees from the crash, but saw a huge fireball ascend.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14PENN.html?ex=1113451200&en=799e89a96943e5d9&ei=5070&pagewanted=2

[Make7]

673. The FDR data shows UA93 was descending when it flipped over.

With all the research you have done on the subject, it seems more than likely you already knew this.

Your idea that UA93 couldn't have flipped over without encountering 6 or 7 g's because that is what you believe would happen if it was maintaing altitude is somewhat disingenuous. Unless you are trying to disprove things that no one has claimed happened.
 

[hack89]

593. You only pull 7 Gs in a banked turn

an 80 bank in level flight will not produce 7 gs. There is absolutely no evidence from the flight recorder that flt 93 did any high g turns.

[planeman]

600. Wrong Mr Hack- if you try to maintain level flight and do a bank of

80 degrees you will experience 6 'g or more.
If you do a 90 degree turn there is no vertical force being applied and the plane would lose height.

[hack89]

603. Again, care to actually provide some proof? nt

[planeman]

611. get the airplane technical manual. are you lazy ?

[SDuderstadt]

616. It's YOUR claim...

you're trying to "shift the burden of proof" by accusing your challenger of "being lazy". Typical "truther" tactic. Oh, wait...I forgot....you're a "no-planer". I didn't mean to respond to you. I prefer dealing with rational human beings.

[planeman]

627. I am claiming a fact- making a turn at a 80 degree angle will exert

6 g's if you try to maintain level flight.
That is an aerodynamic fact.if you choose not to deal with facts that is your problem.
It is in a book called the aeroplane technichal maunual.get off your lazy ass and inform yourself.

[hack89]

618. Give me a fucking break

your only source is an obscure book that I have to go find and read. There is not a single other source on the internet that backs you up? What are you trying to hide here?

[planeman]

624. so you are ignorant as well as lazy. oh dear Mr Hack i am not surprised.

[William Seger]

381. You seem to be struggling ...

... trying to put together a coherent question, much less a coherent argument. Doubles from what to what? Why would I "not have enough guts" to answer questions you keep forgetting to ask?

Let me give you hand: I believe what you are getting at is, you don't believe a 757 could reach 450 kts. I don't really know if it could in level flight, but that isn't relevant. In the case of the UA93 crash, here's where it could get more than enough power to reach 450 kts:



Surely, in your vast experience with aerodynamics, you've heard it said that "altitude is energy?"

[planeman]

404. for such a steep descent the drag force must have been very high.

flight 93'altitude was reltively low(10000 feet or under when it began its descent)
is there enough potential energy for a boeing 757 at this low altitude to convert to kinetic energy to fly into the ground at whopping 560mph.-i dont think so.
even 450 kts which i do believe is absoulute a maximum on a 757's speedometer is 517mph.


for flight 93 the lift/drag ratio must have been poor(eg a lot of drag for required lift)
which means that the there was a large angle of descent.which meanS that fl93 will not glide far.which would account for ITS high speed.but for excessive speed- thrust would have to have been applied.
but herin lies the contradiction.the thrust will overcome the drag which would make a shallower angle of descent-as well as lower RATE OF descent.so you are effectively slowing down.with more power applied the plane would begin to fly level or even climb.

you need to explain how 560mph was reached.showing a poxy contradictory crappy goverment graph mean nothing.

[William Seger]

443. Well, I understand that you "don't think so"

... but so what?

> "for flight 93 the lift/drag ratio must have been poor"

Really? Compared to what? Why would you think that, when as a general rule larger planes have a better L/D ratio than small planes?

> "which means that the there was a large angle of descent"

According to the FDR, it hit the ground at a 40^o angle, inverted. Is that large enough to suit you?

> "which meanS that fl93 will not glide far."

Huh? Glide? Far?

> "which would account for ITS high speed.but for excessive speed- thrust would have to have been applied.

According to the FDR, thrust was applied. So?

> "but herin lies the contradiction.the thrust will overcome the drag which would make a shallower angle of descent-"

Unless maybe you hold the nose down, or maybe turn upside down, huh.

> "as well as lower RATE OF descent."

Which has nothing at all to do with the airspeed we're discussing, even if it were a valid assumption.

> "so you are effectively slowing down."

So, the faster you go the more you slow down? Wow, I never knew that.

> "with more power applied the plane would begin to fly level or even climb."

Last time for this: The plane was not in a level flight, and in fact not even in a constant shallow dive. The pilot was deliberately trying to throw the passengers around by maneuvering, did a very steep dive, and turned the plane upside down before impact. Why should we have to wade through this stuff when it's completely irrelevant to what happened?

> "you need to explain how 560mph was reached"

I have: by diving from 10000 feet. Now it's your turn. You need to explain why the FDR data can't be right, and "I don't think so" isn't nearly adequate for that, nor is all this hand-waving.

[planeman]

518. not a smart response mr seagar

> "for flight 93 the lift/drag ratio must have been poor"

Really? Compared to what? Why would you think that, when as a general rule larger planes have a better L/D ratio than small planes?

i was highlighting the ineffeciency of the dive-which leads to its steep descent.but you dont have the capability to understand that-steep descents and thrust dont mix dude.-it is aerodynamically impossible.

> "which means that the there was a large angle of descent"

According to the FDR, it hit the ground at a 40o angle, inverted. Is that large enough to suit you?

you forgot to mention it was upside down-except a plane cannot go upside down at 560 mph.
it would be outside it's flight envelope



> "which meanS that fl93 will not glide far."

Huh? Glide? Far?

witnesses saw it from nearly 10 miles away. in level flight.

> "which would account for ITS high speed.but for excessive speed- thrust would have to have been applied.

According to the FDR, thrust was applied. So?



> "but herin lies the contradiction.the thrust will overcome the drag which would make a shallower angle of descent-"

Unless maybe you hold the nose down, or maybe turn upside down, huh.

are you seriouse.the wing loading of the plane is increasing-the plane maybe weighs 5 times the amount of its normal weight and you expect a hijacker with no experience to pitch the nose down?!!

> "as well as lower RATE OF descent."

Which has nothing at all to do with the airspeed we're discussing, even if it were a valid assumption.

it has everything to do with the airpeed-lower rate of descent i.e 2000ft/ minute is slower than 10000 feet/minute.

> "so you are effectively slowing down."

So, the faster you go the more you slow down? Wow, I never knew that.

no the faster you go- THE HIGHER YOU GO

> "with more power applied the plane would begin to fly level or even climb."

Last time for this: The plane was not in a level flight, and in fact not even in a constant shallow dive. The pilot was deliberately trying to throw the passengers around by maneuvering, did a very steep dive, and turned the plane upside down before impact. Why should we have to wade through this stuff when it's completely irrelevant to what happened?

i am afraid the plane was in level flight
The plane leveled off but began descending away from the airport, Mr. Peterson said. Five minutes later, he learned that the plane had crashed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14PENN.html?ex=1113451200&en=799e89a96943e5d9&ei=5070


> "you need to explain how 560mph was reached"

I have: by diving from 10000 feet. Now it's your turn. You need to explain why the FDR data can't be right, and "I don't think so" isn't nearly adequate for that, nor is all this hand-waving.

no you have not .you gave all the wrong aerodynamic "ADVICE".
the fdr data cant be right because witnesses have seen the plane at much lower altitudes at alledgedly the same moment in time as the fdr which has the plane at altitudes as high as 8000-10000 feet

it is you that is hand waving.

[William Seger]

550. Your imaginary aerodynamics

... fit in well with the imaginary structural mechanics we get around here, as does your highly selective, out-of-context use of witness accounts. Here's a suggestion: Microsoft's Flight Simulator is known to be a fairly accurate aerodynamic simulation and to accurately model the particular aerodynamic behavior of various planes ("As Real as it Gets"). Get a copy and see how "impossible" it is to get one of their passenger jets up to 450 kts, or to turn upside-down, or to crash into the ground at that speed, upside-down or not. My question is then, not to explain why I don't seem to have any problem doing that, but to give me a reason why anyone should take you seriously.

[planeman]

577. actually the imaginary aerodynamics are yours.

Funny you mention Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Every time you reach 450 kts at few 100 feet off the ground the flight simulators shows you this:


How does it feel to be debunked?

[William Seger]

578. LMAO, yes, the aircraft is "overstressed"

I've heard that's very dangerous. :eyes:

[planeman]

581. well the simulation end when the aircraft is overstressed mr seagar

you obviously have never used the simulator have you?
LMFAO mate
You really do not know what you are talking about

[William Seger]

583. Wow, that's a strange statement from someone who just proved himself wrong

You claimed that aerodynamics would prevent a jetliner from reaching 450 kts and then you post a picture of an FS plane which you say is flying at that speed? (Where's the airspeed indicator, BTW?) But you just ignore that you've refuted your own claim and instead make a different claim that the "overstressed" message means that a real plane would break up at that speed?

Well, you guessed wrong: I've been playing with FS since the Apple II subLogic version, before MS bought it, and yes, I'm aware that there are a lot of options in the "realism" settings. (And I also know that it doesn't actually simulate aircraft stress -- it just has some pre-programmed rules.) I also know that it's hard to get that message unless you overspeed for an extended period of time or try to do high-G maneuvering while overspeeding. But when I get home tonight, I'll be glad to run the experiment again with FSX and post some pics.

[planeman]

598. you are not making sense mr seagar-

You claim or imply that an aircraft can attain speeds of 560mph without breaking apart or incuring aerodynamic stress.I have shown proof to the contrary.
Now you are conceding the point and claiming that in fact fl93 was overstressed and parts broke off BECAUSE I SHOWED YOU WITNESSES WHO CLAIMED AS SUCH.

The trouble is the official story that does not concede that parts broke off.

[William Seger]

617. You are seriously confused

I'm simply claiming that I believe the FDR data, and I'm rejecting your specious arguments for why they are "impossible." I'm certainly not claiming that plane was not "incuring aerodynamic stress" and I have no way of knowing whether or not the witness was correct in thinking that pieces were falling off. However, I gave you an example of a plane that didn't fall apart until it reached Mach 1.2, so hand-waving assertions don't prove your claims. So freakin' what if pieces were falling off UA93 when it was seconds away from crashing?

[planeman]

630. I am?-i think it is you who is trying to confuse.

So now witness testimony given at the time of the event that confirms seeing a plane losing parts cannot be trusted?
but fdr data released years after the event can?

[William Seger]

634. What's confusing about this?

I believe I said, "I have no way of knowing whether or not the witness was correct in thinking that pieces were falling off." If they were, the plane must have been going pretty damn fast, huh. If they were, the plane would likely crash, huh.

I really do believe you've lost the plot, here. You're supposed to be proving your claim that the "official story" can't be true.

[William Seger]

591. Here you go

Here's a 737-800 in an inverted dive starting from less than 5000 feet and reaching 452 kts. (I could have gotten it faster, but that was enough.) This was with "Detect crashes and damage" and "Aircraft stress causes damage" turned on, but as I said FS doesn't actually simulate aircraft stress -- it just uses some canned rules -- so that isn't particularly meaningful, and I don't claim this proves the plane wouldn't have started to break up. For that claim, you would need some authoritative proof of the absolute "maximum" speed for a 757, and I challenged you a few posts back to find one. (Also, as I recall, you referred to witnesses who thought they did see pieces coming off the plane, which is certainly possible and in fact might have been the reason the plane became inverted, if control surfaces were damaged. However, that puts you in the rather difficult position of citing a witness saying that what you claimed would happen did indeed happen and then the plane crashed. As I recall, you were supposed to be demonstrating that the "official story" can't be correct.)

FS does, however, accurately simulate aerodynamics, and the point of the exercise was to test your assertions that the plane could not dive at that speed because it would climb back up, and that it could not be turned upside-down at that speed. Of course, it is still a simulation, so I don't claim this as proof of anything except that FSX simulation doesn't support your assertions, which is what I said. So, the question remains: What ARE you basing your assertions on?

[planeman]

597. LOL why did you pause the simulation-let me show you WHAT YOU HAVE SHOWN

This is Microsoft flight simulator 2004 using a 737:
Speed is 450 kts at merely 400 feet off the ground.
Also control at the yoke is greatly reduced.


a few seconds later you get this message.


No need to pause the simulation Mr seager-the simulation PAUSES automatically once the aircraft is overstressed..

[AZCat]

599. Are you seriously basing your arguments on FSX?

Is this a joke?






Edited to remove the word "simulation".

[planeman]

606. Mr Seagar is-take it up with him.

[Bolo Boffin]

608. Could you spell his name correctly in a gesture of good faith? n/t

[AZCat]

622. His argument appears to be different from yours.

Unfortunately for you, FSX is not capable of supporting your argument.

[planeman]

628. still making baseless accusations without proof Mrcat!

care to back up your baseless statements?

[AZCat]

645. Such an argument is ridiculous on its face.

Are you aware of the software and processing requirements for a proper aerodynamic simulation, as opposed to a video game? If not, you should check out FLUENT or CATIA, to give a few examples.

[planeman]

660. No your aurgument is ridiculouse.

That reverse thrusters caused the damage to lauda jet. LOL-that says it all with regards to your integrity or the lack of it.

I think Flight simulator is more that adequate evidence to prove that what a boeing 757 can and cannot do.that is why you want to down play it significance.

[AZCat]

663. I think you don't know very much about simulation.

What do you think is the basis for the flight model in FSX? Do you really think the software is capable of proving what you want it to, especially when considering that we're discussing behavior outside the prescribed performance envelope?

[William Seger]

613. FSX doesn't automatically pause

... and in this case I was about a second away from crashing in roughly the same way as UA93, so I paused it to get the screen grab. Did you have a point?

Since you didn't answer my questions, it looks like we're finished here.

[planeman]

631. i did answer your question mr seagar- so fsx does not pause

well MFS 2004 does- either way an aircraft become s overstressed at low altitude and at high speed-do i get a prize?

[Realityhack]

563. You are using a lot of words that I do not think you know the meaning of.

"
>According to the FDR, it hit the ground at a 40o angle, inverted. Is that large enough to suit you?

you forgot to mention it was upside down-except a plane cannot go upside down at 560 mph.
it would be outside it's flight envelope"

He most certainly did mention it was upside down.

As for being 'outside it's flight envelope' you do realize the plane fucking crashed right?

[planeman]

607. in fact you demonstrate that you are ignorant of the laws of aerodynamics.

the plane must pulled more than 6 g's at 10:02-03 on the FDR-Jarrah should have greyed or blacked out-rather than be consciouse and shout "allah who akbar"!
You are not dealing with the fact that what you believe in is being shown to be rubbish.

[William Seger]

614. "...shown to be rubbish" ?! Where?

Obviously, someone isn't dealing very well with what's being shown, but I don't believe it's RH...

[planeman]

629. yes mr seagar-that someone is you.

[AZCat]

198. The interesting question is "why?" n/t

[Make7]

207. I would guess the air is so dense that no plane can go any faster.

j/k

[planeman]

211. tell that to az cat

[AZCat]

188. Of course it would be.

Although not everything is contained in the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations, also known as Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations).

[jberryhill]

533. A lot of patents get issued this way, believe it or not....

If you can draft a claim to an invention so blitheringly inane that there would not be a written description of such a thing in the literature, you can smoke the examiner.

[SDuderstadt]

233. the speed limit (regulatory limit)...

on our freeways is 65-70 mph. are you seriously suggest my car canot physically go faster than that?

[OnTheOtherHand]

252. well, these days, mine hardly can

So there!

[planeman]

290. but could you control your car at 130mph? probably not.

[Realityhack]

592. Depends upon conditions and what maneuver.

In many modern cars under reasonable conditions yes.

It isn't safe but don't pretend it can't be done.

[vincent_vega_lives]

393. What MORON

would even consider that regulatory airspeed limits in place for safety and to prolong the use of the airframe are EVEN CLOSE to the physical/structural limitations of the airframe????

AYFKM?

[planeman]

400. tell that to make7 who took an FAA regulation and tried to pass it off as a

physical limit regulation

[OnTheOtherHand]

403. huh?

What the heck is a "physical limit regulation"? (I just googled that phrase and got zero hits.) And who cares about it anyway?

The issue isn't whether the hijackers violated a regulation, regardless of the rationale for the regulation. It's whether the plane could go that fast, for how long, under what circumstances. At least, I thought that was the issue. I really have no issue; I'm trying to understand yours.

[planeman]

411. huh? what mate? read the trest of the thread if you want learn more.

[OnTheOtherHand]

445. yeah, I have

Your inability to answer straightforward questions speaks for itself, I guess.

[planeman]

609. and your inability to ask straight forward questions or give straight forward

answers also speaks volumes touche'

[OnTheOtherHand]

621. oh, yeah, right

Which part of "What the heck is a 'physical limit regulation'?" do you find confusing?

[planeman]

625. do you even no anything about test flight procedures or what VMO and VDF stand for?

MrHand,you sir need to do more research before asking meaningless questions to which you already know the answer.

[OnTheOtherHand]

638. huh?

I need to (1) do more research before asking (2) meaningless questions to which I (3) already know the answer?

Mrman, you sir make no sense whatsoever. That's OK. Nothing in the rules says you have to make sense.

[planeman]

661. the laws of aerodynamics will never make sense to you..

[Make7]

408. Unless Otherwise Authorized.

The regulation limiting speed to 250 KIAS below 10,000 ft MSL starts with: "Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots."

It is difficult for me to believe that even you would take that to mean that 250 KIAS was a physical limitation for a plane. Perhaps vincent_vega_lives' question was not too far off the mark.

You requested the rule that shows where a plane can fly faster than 360 KIAS at MSL. The applicable regulation is the initial one that I posted limiting aircraft to 250 KIAS below 10,000 ft MSL. If you can't fly faster than 250 KIAS (unless otherwise authorized), certainly you must understand that you are not allowed to fly faster than 360 KIAS. (Because 360 is greater than 250.)

I did follow up by posting a portion of the Federal Aviation Regulations which clearly state that a plane is required to be able to go above its V_mo. In my opinion, if a plane is required to be certified to be able to go faster than the V_mo then the V_mo is not a regulated physical limit. Of course, you neglected respond with any argument... at all...

Why you believe the V_mo of a commercial jet is a physical limitation is a mystery yet to be solved.
 

[planeman]

413. Go above VMO you incur aerodynamic stress.

Are you denying that MR 7.

[Make7]

460. At what point above Vmo does aerodynamic stress begin?

By how much would a plane need to exceed its V_mo to cause problems?

As an example, let's look at Flight 93. According to the FDR data the overspeed indicator was activated from approximately 9:44:35 am through 9:45:40 am. Since this means that the plane was exceeding its V_mo, why didn't the excess speed cause loss of control of and/or damage to the aircraft? Or perhaps it did and somehow the plane managed to stay in the air for another 17 min or so?
 

[planeman]

522. who says that parts did not break off as the plane exceeded its VMO

Residents of nearby Indian Lake reported seeing debris falling from the jetliner as it overflew the area shortly before crashing.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12969.html

oh yes mr 7,people like you.

[Make7]

530. They saw parts break off when the plane was still in Ohio at 20,000 ft?

So you believe that residents of Indian Lake saw parts break off the plane while it was flying at 20,000 ft over Ohio? Could they even see the plane when it was that far away? Seems rather unlikely.

So you think that UA93 exceeded its V_mo for approximately one minute and that caused parts to break off? Yet whoever was flying it was able to continue to fly the plane for over 15 minutes...

How much faster than its V_mo could a commercial jet go before the pilot would lose control of the aircraft?

How much faster than its V_mo could a commercial jet go before parts would begin to break off the aircraft?
 

[planeman]

574. No they saw parts break off the plane at a few 1000 feet off the ground

and the plane was either flying at its VMO or even just below it-yet parts broke off-so what do you think would happen if it flew faster than its vmo.come on dear mr 7 .dont be shy sir.

[Make7]

584. So you think that there were no problems when it exceeded its Vmo over Ohio? ( n/t )

[planeman]

602. Mr 7 your playful antics do not fool me.A plane incurs aerodynamic stress

above its VMO.It is an aerodynamic fact of life.especially when you exceed it by over 100 knots.

that is why professional pilots are taught how to handle these aircraft above VMO and MMO.

[Make7]

619. How can they fly a plane above its Vmo without parts breaking off?

 

seatnineb wrote:

No they saw parts break off the plane at a few 1000 feet off the ground and the plane was either flying at its VMO or even just below it-yet parts broke off-so what do you think would happen if it flew faster than its vmo.come on dear mr 7 .dont be shy sir.

seatnineb wrote:

A plane incurs aerodynamic stress above its VMO.It is an aerodynamic fact of life.especially when you exceed it by over 100 knots.

that is why professional pilots are taught how to handle these aircraft above VMO and MMO.

Do you even read your own posts?

First you strongly imply that parts will break off the plane when it exceeds its V_mo, and now you state that pilots are taught how to fly above V_mo. How can they be expected to fly a plane when parts incurring aerodynamic stress are breaking off the aircraft?
 

[planeman]

626. umm-you got my name wrong Mr7-can you not read?

LMFAO
So do you believe that witness testimony that they saw parts breaking off the plane even though it did not exceed its VMO?
It's a simple question Mr7.Or are you too chicken to answer?
And please get my name right Mr7.

[Make7]

637. I guess you just remind me of 'seatnineb' for some reason.

On the other hand, you at least seem to have finally figured out that V_NE speeds aren't applicable to modern comercial jets - seatnineb never appeared to grasp that distinction. One time he even seemed to argue about the V_MO being 360 KIAS for a 767. Man, he was always good for a laugh.

planeman wrote:

So do you believe that witness testimony that they saw parts breaking off the plane even though it did not exceed its VMO?

According to the FDR data, the plane did exceed its V_MO right before it crashed. Perhaps the parts began to break off when it went above its V_MO. Isn't that you have been trying to imply this whole time? Parts break off above V_MO?
 

[planeman]

658. The fact that you are concerned more with anonymouse posters

than with the facts of 911 is what strikes me.

I do know of seatnineb's postings from 911movement.Never knew he was a poster here.And some of the books that he has linked to on that forum I have found and read.

As for the distinction between VNE and VMO.VMO was the "new" VNE as far as commercial airliners are concerned.

So if you now finally concede that parts were breaking off from the plane-you do realise that contradicts the official line?

[Make7]

665. I'm just interested because it seems so oddly coincidental...

I am not saying that you are seatnineb - just that the subjects you discuss, the sources you use, the mistakes you make, the way you spell certain words, etc., etc. remind me of seatnineb.

He would often post scans from books he found things in and other custom images - kind of like the Flight Simulator images you posted in this thread. I'm going to point out something that seems like a really odd coincidence to me. Here are the web addresses from some of the custom images that you have posted:

    http://edit.81x.com/Authors/TruthExplosion/mssimulator1.jpg
    http://edit.81x.com/Authors/TruthExplosion/mssimulator3.jpg

And here are some from seatnineb:

    http://edit.81x.com/Authors/TruthExplosion/exccess767.jpg
    http://edit.81x.com/Authors/TruthExplosion/excessvne.jpg
    http://edit.81x.com/Authors/TruthExplosion/vneexcess.jpg

What are the odds of you both using the same website, under the same author account for your images?

Like I said, there are lots of reasons that you remind me of seatnineb. I must have been thinking about him in my post where I used his username instead of yours when I quoted you. It's actually pretty funny if you think about it.
 

[planeman]

671. LOL! i also posted some pages from Killtown too -does that mean i am killtown too

Who i remind you of is insignficant mr 7.
i am member of 911 taboo aswell which is where i got those ms simulator fotos from.
i have known seatnineb's sources from those forums.
join up there and take it up with him.btw your ip address will be noted.

[Make7]

674. You seem to rely heavily on what 'seatnineb' has posted on this subject.

Does he issue talking points on what arguments and counter-arguments to make, complete with what source material to use? Or do you just closely follow what he posts elsewhere in order to basically copy what he has said and bring it over here?

I guess if you are simply copying seatnineb's ideas and efforts, that would explain why you remind me of him so much. Perhaps imitation is the highest form of flattery.
 

[hack89]

114. Straight down you can.

you do understand that plane was crashing?

[planeman]

120. you dont know what you are talking about.

a real plane would have broken apart at that speed anywhere at msl.

Examination of nonvolatile computer memory within the left EEC indicated that the engine was at climb power when the reverser deployed, engine thrust was reduced to idle with the reverser deployment, and the recorded Mach number increased from 0.78 to 0.99 after the deployment. The actual maximum speed reached is unknown due to pressure measurement and recording uncertainties.


The scatter of wreckage indicated that the airplane experienced in-flight breakup at a steep descent angle and low altitude.
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/LaudaAir/LaudaSYN.html

[hack89]

125. Bad things happen when you deploy thrust reverser's at high speed and at altitude

which of course has nothing to do with Flt 93

[planeman]

130. it has everything to do with fl93.

the structure of the plane was place under stress.like flight93 should have been.

[hack89]

135. And you know the stress was identical because??? nt

[planeman]

147. because fl93 flew faster than 360 knots.

[hack89]

149. You're funny - thanks for the entertainment. Bye. nt

[planeman]

163. and thanks for proving that you do not a have a clue about the laws of aerodynamics.

[AZCat]

126. I don't think that example proves what you think it does.

The in-flight breakup was due to the accidentally deployed thrust reverser, not the speed of the aircraft at msl.

[planeman]

129. you did not read the document properly.

Sounds similar to airframe shuddering were then heard on the CVR. Twenty nine seconds later the CVR recording ended with multiple sounds thought to be structural breakup.
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/LaudaAir/LaudaSYN.html

[AZCat]

131. Somehow I don't think it's me who has the reading comprehension problem. n/t

[planeman]

134. the reverse thruster caused a lack of control.structure failure was caused by speed.

[AZCat]

141. Nooooo, not really.

But thanks for displaying your woeful ignorance of all things aerodynamic.

[planeman]

151. i am afraid it is your ignorance that is on display.

I have links.

The cockpit voice recording ended twenty nine seconds later with multiple bangs thought to be structural breakup of the airplane.
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/LaudaAir/LaudaRPT.html

what ya got dude.
nada

[AZCat]

155. Yeah, I saw your link.

The problem is that it doesn't say what you think it does.

[planeman]

159. you have not read anything.but now you will.and everyone will see what you did not want them to.

The analysis of the major structural damage showed that the failures were probably the result of buffeting, maneuvering overload, and excessive speed. Parts of the airplane that separated from buffeting overload appear to be pieces of the rudder and the left elevator. This was followed by the down-and- aft separation of most of the right horizontal stabilizer from maneuvering overloads, as the crew attempted to control the airplane and arrest the high-speed descent.


In-Flight Breakup Sequence (2.2.2)

[AZCat]

166. Much better.

Now you're paying attention to your sources (or at least enough attention to quote the correct portions).

Can you see why I rejected your claim?

[planeman]

171. No.I can see you are in denial.

[AZCat]

184. Following the standard conspiracy theorist's approach, I see.

Since I don't agree with your conclusion, I must be in denial. It couldn't be that you are mistaken. :eyes:

[planeman]

187. But it is you who is mistaken.I showed a link showing that the plane broke up.

due to excessive speed amongst other things.
You have not provided anything to rebut this.
You are the conspiracy theorist.

[AZCat]

196. Are those goalposts heavy? You should be careful of your back.

As you get older these things start to matter. I'd be careful of moving heavy objects like goalposts.

A recap:
Post #120

120. you dont know what you are talking about.


a real plane would have broken apart at that speed anywhere at msl.

Examination of nonvolatile computer memory within the left EEC indicated that the engine was at climb power when the reverser deployed, engine thrust was reduced to idle with the reverser deployment, and the recorded Mach number increased from 0.78 to 0.99 after the deployment. The actual maximum speed reached is unknown due to pressure measurement and recording uncertainties.


The scatter of wreckage indicated that the airplane experienced in-flight breakup at a steep descent angle and low altitude.
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/LaudaAir/LaudaSYN.html

Post #134

134. the reverse thruster caused a lack of control.structure failure was caused by speed.

Post #159

159. you have not read anything.but now you will.and everyone will see what you did not want them to.

The analysis of the major structural damage showed that the failures were probably the result of buffeting, maneuvering overload, and excessive speed. Parts of the airplane that separated from buffeting overload appear to be pieces of the rudder and the left elevator. This was followed by the down-and- aft separation of most of the right horizontal stabilizer from maneuvering overloads, as the crew attempted to control the airplane and arrest the high-speed descent.


In-Flight Breakup Sequence (2.2.2)

Post #187

187. But it is you who is mistaken.I showed a link showing that the plane broke up.


due to excessive speed amongst other things.
You have not provided anything to rebut this.
You are the conspiracy theorist.

Can you see the difference?

[planeman]

203. thanks for showing the posts that prove my point!lol!

[AZCat]

215. They don't prove your point at all - that's the funny part. n/t

[planeman]

218. my point was that the reverse thruster caused a lack of control.

excessive speed caused break up.
the links back me up.

[AZCat]

220. No, the links don't. Arguing about this has become pointless.

I hope you have nothing to do with aviation. I'd hate to think of people's lives in your hands.

[planeman]

223. yes they do.just saying they dont does not make it so.

you have provide no links.no evidence to back up you claims.i did.
and i am pretty sure YOU have nothing to do with aviation.your lack of knowledge is telling.

[AZCat]

227. Your links are sufficient to disprove your theory.

Your posts are sufficient to prove your ignorance.

[planeman]

229. just saying it does not make it so.I showed the links.you have showed nothing.

[AZCat]

234. Please - keep repeating yourself.

Your ignorance only becomes more obvious with every post.

[planeman]

239. no problem. excessive speed causes damage to a plane .

[AZCat]

242. Why, planeman - why?

Can you explain what it is about excessive speed that causes damage? Please, enlighten me. It's been a while since I talked about boundary layers. Take care to illustrate what physical principles guide your analysis, and apply them to the various incidents in question (Flights 77 and 93, in case you've forgotten).

[planeman]

246. I have just shown you how it effects the structural integrity of the aircraft

and you know that.

[AZCat]

250. You've shown that a thrust reverser deployed in flight is bad news.

I agree, although it shouldn't have been as catastrophic. Maybe that's why Boeing redesigned the system.

[planeman]

272. reverse thrusters in flight did not cause structural damage.

excessive speed did.

Look at this flight simulator demo showing that reverse thrusters can be deployed in flight without CAUSING STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE AIRCRAFT.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG-atnNEl14

[AZCat]

293. Now you're using flight simulators as proof?

Are you really this ignorant? It's not even a Level C or D simulator - it's FSX! (not that it would matter - even Level C/D sims are dependent on the data provided)

[planeman]

301. did not the hijackers practise on microsoft flight simulators LOFL!!

[AZCat]

305. Ignoratio elenchi.

Try again.

[planeman]

311. moussoui did.

*Zacarias Moussaoui was one of the hijackers involved in the September 11 attacks, and had flight-simulation software on his laptop computer when he was arrested. During the trial of Moussaoui it was revealed that he had used the Flight simulation software to improve his flying skills. <[br />http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/48931.

Or did ziad jarrah practise flying upside down at 500mph in a full on boeing simulator without anyone noticing? LOL

[AZCat]

316. Irrelevant.

We are discussing the effect of a deployed thrust reverser during flight, not the piloting skills of the hijackers. Please try to stay on topic.

[planeman]

319. actually we are talking abou how the lauda plane broke apart because of excessive speed.

and how flight 93 failed to break apart because of excessive speed.just thought i would remind you.

[AZCat]

331. No, we weren't.

You were trying to draw that conclusion, but the evidence doesn't support you.

[planeman]

337. oh yes we were.you are twisting the report to suit your agenda.

[AZCat]

341. No, I'm sorry - that's not correct.

Basing the discussion on your misunderstanding of a report would be a bad idea. I'd much rather base it on actual fact.

[planeman]

354. you TWISTED the report to suit your agenda

you are trying to attribute the damage to the plane because of the reverse thrusters(which is indirectly true)

you mr cat wrote:
The buffering and maneuvering overload were caused by the deployed thrust reverser's effect on the aerodynamics of the airframe, combined with the excessive speed .


but the report says that the damage was caused strictly by the buffeting,overload and EXCESSIVE speed:
The analysis of the major structural damage showed that the failures were probably the result of buffeting, maneuvering overload, and excessive speed. Parts of the airplane that separated from buffeting overload appear to be pieces of the rudder and the left elevator.

you are debunked

[OnTheOtherHand]

399. well, no

There is no contradiction between what you quote AZCat as saying and what you quote the report as saying. Perhaps you are not actually reading what AZCat wrote even as you quote it.

[planeman]

405. azcat implies that the reverse thruster DIRECTLY affected the airframes

structural integrety.

which is not true.
the reverse thruster INDIECTLY affected the structural integrity of the plane.
what directly affected the structural integrity of the plane was the excessive speed.
it was the application of the reverse thruster which led to a loss of control which caused that excessive speed.

you obvuously dont know what you are talking about.

[OnTheOtherHand]

410. no, he doesn't

AZCat made a very specific claim about what the reverse thruster directly affected. It was not the airframes themselves. While you are misrepresenting his words, it is good that you quoted them so that we can see your error clearly.

"what directly affected the structural integrity of the plane was the excessive speed."

The report clearly cites three probable causes, not just one. Someone more than tendentious than myself might characterize your statement as TWISTING the report to suit your agenda.

And in all of this, you are nowhere near establishing an argument about the Shanksville crash.

[planeman]

414. yes excessive speed was one of the factors-do i get a prize?

[OnTheOtherHand]

427. for belligerence, perhaps? n/t

[planeman]

432. oh dear-some adhomeinem-always a good sign that somebody has no aurgument.

[OnTheOtherHand]

439. I accept your concession n/t

[Matsuflex]

98. It didn't disappear into the ground

It "disappeared" from hitting the ground.

[planeman]

how could it disappear from hitting soft dirt?

[Matsuflex]

116. What the heck are you talking about

what do you mean "soft dirt"? Do you think Flight 93 crashed on rocks?

[planeman]

119. you know what i am talking about.fl93 crashed on soft dirt.

[Matsuflex]

136. I know where it crashed

It crashed in a field. What are you getting at?

[planeman]

140. and what kind of feild was it? dont be shy.it was soft dirt.prove me wrong.

[Matsuflex]

146. It was an abandoned strip mine.

What did I win?

[planeman]

157. an abandonbed strip mine with soft dirt.

just thought i would show the public what you oviously did not want them to see.

The strip mine is composed of very soft black soil, and searchers said much of the wreckage was found buried 20 to 25 feet below the large crater. " -Standard-Times (09/11/02)

[Bolo Boffin]

158. So what's your problem?

The searchers said most of the wreckage was found below the dirt -- as in, not visible from the surface.

What's your beef?

[planeman]

161. You. how does a plane completely disintegrate hitting soft dirt?

I expect a full Physical explanation from you.
LOL!!!!

[Bolo Boffin]

164. The same way it would disintegrate hitting soft water. n/t

[planeman]

175. Like twa 800

LOL!!

As i said.
Provide a physical explanation

[Matsuflex]

183. TWA 800 partially blew up in midair

and I doubt it crashed into the water anywhere near the speed Flight 93 did. I'd expect larger pieces of TWA 800 to be left although Bolo is right, the soft water did break up the plane.

[planeman]

225. You are incorrect as usual.It was actually flying as fast as fl93 AFTER it blew up

Primary radar data showed that TWA800's speed went from 385 knots to 460 knots within ten seconds after the explosion that blew off its nose, proof that it was falling, not climbing.
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-twa-800-eyewitnesses-demand-a-hearing/.

Seriously.is this the best that you have to offer.you donnot even know the story you believe in well.
probably the reason why you believe it.

[Matsuflex]

176. Thank you Bolo Boffin

I was just about to post that!

[planeman]

180. boloboffin has proved again that he does not understand physics.

this is plane that crashed into the water.

there are more parts than fl93

[Bolo Boffin]

190. You do understand that they had been painstakingly reconstructing that plane

from much smaller pieces?

[planeman]

192. but those small pieces are still quite big;

could you find me an equivalent sized piece from flight 93 please
thank you.

[Matsuflex]

202. Here. What did I win?

[planeman]

213. you dont win.i found a much bigger piece from twa800

[Matsuflex]

256. This is not a penis size match.

Both planes hit soft surfaces and both broke up into pieces. Dirt is harder than water, so it is not surprising that United 93 got broken up into smaller pieces than TWA 800.

[planeman]

304. pan am fell from a height of 31000 feet and hit dirt.

yet larger pieces remained.
case closed.

[Matsuflex]

194. And look what that soft water did to TWA 800

It broke it up into pieces. Did you think TWA 800 should have been found intact floating on the water?

[planeman]

205. yes .far bigger pieces than fl93.

[Bolo Boffin]

226. A few, yes.

So?

[planeman]

230. So if water failed to disintegrate twa800 into small pieces so that less

than 80% of it could be recovered.
How could soft dirt disintegrate flight 93 so that less than 80 % of it could be recovered.

[Bolo Boffin]

235. 95% of Flight 93 was recovered.

And the rest of your question needs to be rephrased.

[planeman]

248. 95%!! what a joke.show it.until you or the goverment does show it.

I wont believe it .sorry.

Pan am and TWA humiliate fl93.

[Bolo Boffin]

254. Well, your believing it isn't any concern of mine.

I don't care. Believe it or not. Who gives a fuck what you believe?

[Name removed]

278. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[planeman]

291. if i am of no concern then why respond?

[Bolo Boffin]

310. It is of no concern to me if you believe the truth or not.

That doesn't mean that the things you say isn't of concern to me.

[planeman]

320. good because i am concerned about the things that you say too.

[rollingrock]

181. Uhh, no.

June 10, 1996

MIAMI (CNN) -- Nearly one month after the crash of ValuJet Flight 592, investigators said Monday they believe the crash was caused by "an intense in-flight fire" (166K AIFF or WAV sound) and that the search for wreckage was being called off.
Hall

"We will be moving from the salvage recovery phase of the investigation to the wreckage analysis and reconstruction phase," said Jim Hall, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. He made the announcement at a news conference in Miami.

Crews have recovered almost 75 percent of the DC-9 that crashed in the Florida Everglades May 11, killing all 110 aboard.


Thirty-six people have been identified from remains found at the scene. Dr. Robert Mittleman, chief medical examiner for Dade County, said he couldn't say whether the victims died of smoke inhalation before the plane's impact in the swamp. None of the remains showed evidence of burns, he said.

Crash investigators did not say what they thought might have caused the fire, noting that their probe would continue for perhaps another six to nine months. However, NTSB Vice Chairman Robert Francis said there was no evidence so far linking the fire to the plane's electrical system.

www.cnn.com/US/9606/10/valujet/index.html

[planeman]

111. how could it disappear from hitting soft dirt?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

199. NO OTHER PLANE HAS DISAPPEARED and gone underground!

93 was a hoax

[Matsuflex]

216. It didn't disappear and go underground.

Why do you conspiracy theorists keep repeating that? United 93 crashed and caused a very similar sized crater as the crash of United 585.

1.4 Other Damage

There was no damage to structures on the ground. Trees adjacent to the impact crater were damaged by flying debris and soot, and nearby patches of grass north and northeast of the crater were scorched. The size of the impact crater measured approximately 39 feet by 24 feet and was about 15 deep. http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR92-06.pdf

Big pieces of United 93's fuselage were even found away from the crater on the ground.




The only parts of United 93 you would expect to find embedded in the ground would be heavy parts like the engine...



The engines being found buried is also consistent with the similar crash of United 585..

The left engine was buried about 10 feet nose down in the ground under the left wing at about a 75-degree impact angle. Page 43 http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR92-06.pdf

[planeman]

221. what a joke .is that all there is? that is far less than 80% of the plane.

how can soft dirt disintegrate more than 80% of a plane.

Those exibits were released years after the event.
Unlike fotos of pan am or twa800.

[Matsuflex]

258. The plane broke up into small pieces

and took a trajectory path into the woods which you can see has been greatly damaged by the crash. Debris flung into the woods even broke some trees.

[planeman]

277. it flun ginto the woods.how convenient.to be revealed in fotos shown years later.

fact is that there is no compelling evidence that a boeing 757 crashed in that crater.compared to other plane crashes.

[SDuderstadt]

287. Accidental dupe

Self-delete

[SDuderstadt]

288. Now you're claiming there were no photos of the crash site until "years later"??

Seriously? This is getting dumber by the moment.

[planeman]

294. the foto of big pieces like the fuselage were released to the public during the

moussoui trial in 2006.nearly 5 years after the event.
pan am's broken cockpit was shown within 24 hours.
There is nothing of fl93 to see.

[Matsuflex]

315. Did you expect it to get buried underground

after crashing at a low angle? Some claimed it crashed at a steep angle at first, but that was a myth. As I recall the plane crashed at around a 45 degree angle, it broke up into pieces from the fast speed it crashed at, and bounced and scattered into and around the forest. Think if you are skipping rocks on the water. Do you throw the rock at a steep angle, or a low angle?

[planeman]

322. wrong comparison.is a rock a hollow object like a plane.

so now the plane parts bounced off the ground?

how ridiculouse is this sounding.

[Matsuflex]

323. The plane crashed at a 45 degree angle

The plane then broke up after striking the ground at such a fierce speed and the debris bounced into the forest and surrounding areas. Some debris was found hanging in the trees. Some of the trees were broken from the debris striking them. A person house a few yards away got pelted by debris. I believe a passenger seat landed by the person's house. A piece of one of the engines landed a couple hundred yards down in the catchment pond.

I know the plane is mostly a hollow object. What do you think the plane should have done after hitting at that low of an angle, bury underground? lulz

[planeman]

325. and nothing landed in the open field...right!

If the goverment had fotos like this of fl93 they would have been strewn all over the media.thereality is they have nothing.and niether do you.

[Matsuflex]

329. The trajectory of the crash

lined up towards the forest, not the open field. You can see where the crash took out a section of the forest. The low angle of the crashed caused the debris to bounce and scatter into the forest area.

[planeman]

330. and the ensueing explosion would have redirected that debris in practically every direction.

something that did not happen.it is a joke.

[Matsuflex]

334. Crashing at that low of angle would not

redirect the debris in every direction. There was another plane crash I have to find that crashed at a very steep angle, but the debris trajectory did not go in all directions. The debris trajectory fanned out in the same trajectory. That entire plane was also reduced to small pieces.

[planeman]

338. good find me the link or else it will prove that you do not know what you are talking about.

[Matsuflex]

340. Canberra WD991 crash

This plane crashed at between 460-518 mph at a steeper angle and was broken up into small pieces. The debris fanned out in the same trajectory it crashed.


CANBERRA WD991 - Cottam, Preston - 25th March 1952
The aircraft was described as flying "low and fast" when suddenly it entered a steep dive, with no apparent attempt to pull out, striking the ground at an angle of approx. 80 degrees at an estimated speed of 400-450kts. WD991 instantly completely disintegrated, scattering wreckage for some 600 yards beyond the main impact crater and sending a column of black smoke into the sky. Fortunately the impact was in open farmland and the only nearby building - a bungalow on Valentine Lane - was peppered with debris, shattering all the windows facing the impact and tearing several holes in the roof. Fortunately no one was at home at the time. http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/Canberra%20WD991.htm

[planeman]

355. thanks for the link

even from this far away view it looks like thre is far more debris of that plane( which was a much smaller plane than a 757) than of fl93


canberra plane


fl93

[Matsuflex]

377. The Canberra plane crashed at 80 degrees, not 45 degrees

It's no wonder more of the Canberra debris is closer around the crater it left. Still you can see how much of its debris fanned out well beyond the impact crater, so imagine if that plane crashed at 45 degrees and skipped up into the forest.

[planeman]

524. those may be valid points but as i said before the explosion would have redirected that

debris in every and any direction-that somehow did not happen on 911-another anomaly.

[vincent_vega_lives]

640. Only in the movies. (n/t)

[Matsuflex]

339. What do you think happened planeman?

What is the suspicion of this crash since you seem to think the aftermath should have looked different?

[planeman]

358. couple of reasons.

it crashed at record breaking 560 mph.

a 757 cannot attain that speed at msl.fact.

the fact is compared to any other plane crash of any denomination fl93 crater and damage looks nothing like a plane crash.just like the 1st witnesses on the scene reported.

[SDuderstadt]

361. So, what do you think happened....

"planeman"? Give us your alternative hypothesis. We're all ears.

[planeman]

363. my alternative hypothesis is no plane crashed there.

how does that sound.

[SDuderstadt]

366. Pretty stupid, actually.

Well, you asked. I'm sorry. I should have realized that you're a "no-planer". I only attempt debate with rational people.

[planeman]

373. yes i know the official story is pretty stupid - a plane flying into the ground

at 560mph is stupid.
a plane dissapearing into soft dirt is stupid.
bTW i have no idea what a no-planer is?
and i am quite rational.

if you choose to stupidly believe in every lie that our goverment tells us-thats your rproblem.

[SDuderstadt]

376. You don't have to believe "government lies" to know that UA 93...

crashed there, Planeman. There is plenty of evidence and testimony from people not connected to "our government", unless you want to claim a county coroner is "in on it" too.

So, if you think the claim that a plane crached there is "stupid", then tell us what actually happened. Can you?

[planeman]

407. actually the testimony contradicts the ntsb flightpath reconstruction.

witnesses saw the plane at low altitudes(50-200 feet) when the ntsb report actually has flight 93 at least 8000-10000 feet at alledgly the same moments in time when the witnesses are supposed to have seen it. .
you obviously dont know the story that you believe in.that is why you believe it.

[Matsuflex]

378. Then why bring up that the plane buried itself nonsense

if you don't think a plane crashed there? And if no plane crashed there, what did? What happened to Flight 93 and its passengers then?

[SDuderstadt]

379. With all due respect...

I can see that you're new here. Unfortunately, you're going to find that asking the "truthers" logical questions does not trigger civil, logical answers from them but, rather, usually results in them accusing us of being "government shills" or "defending the Bush administration" or of being "disinfo agents". Of course, it apparently never occurs to them that we are loyal liberal democrats who just don't agree with them on the facts. It's actually quite sad.

[Matsuflex]

382. My problem with them is not getting a direct answer.

Even AZCat asked them right away where they got this 80% claim and still no answer from them. I still don't even get why they started this thread.

[SDuderstadt]

383. You're learning fast, amigo....

If you're expecting to get a straight answer from them, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Think "pipe dream".

[planeman]

406. what matters is that whetever happened to those passengers did not happen in that pathetic looking c

[Matsuflex]

409. Correct, it happened in the forest

That's where most of everything ended up.

[planeman]

415. uh- no- the plane hit the ground-not the forest.-and apart from few isolated fragments

of fuselage and other bits and pieces that were released in fotos years after the incident there is little evidence that is convincing.

[Matsuflex]

416. The plane hit the ground and bounced in the forest

You can see where it took out a section of the forest.

[planeman]

424. I think you know that is rubbish.

If soft dirt had the capicity to make all the big parts of fl93 bounce into the forest then why did the big parts off fl77 not bounce off the concrete/kevlar/steel walls of the pentagon and the steel walls of the wtc?

the "forest" is a convenient cover.

[Matsuflex]

431. Because those planes hit at a 90 degree angle

If they crashed at 45 degree, the outcome would have been greatly different.

[planeman]

433. actually fl175 hit at a 45lateral angle-watch the videos

yet it doid not bounce of the wtc
same for the fl77 at the pentagon...it hit at an angle

none of the planes hit PERPENDICULAR to their targets

[Matsuflex]

442. Buildings are not solid like the ground

Not even a close comparison. Dirt will also give to allow and object to bounce off it hitting at a low angle.

[planeman]

523. so you are saying soft dirt is harder than steel and concrete LOL!!

[vincent_vega_lives]

639. No Wrong

Completely incorrect. Vast Majority of debris would be carried in direction of the crash. Fuel ignition has a very low velocity of expansion relative to the speed of the aircraft. Only very lightweight peices would be "redirected".

[planeman]

655. actually the debris would be redirected by the impact of the ground

the ensueing explosion would ensure that the debris would be spread in random directions.

As for slow ignition-ever seen the 1984 cd test conducted by nasa.ignition was lightining fast.

[Matsuflex]

261. OP when you come back maybe you can explain

why you expect there to be this claimed 80% of United 93 found under the ground when you can see the damage path in the woods that the aftermath of the crash created.

[Old and In the Way]

343. Where's the physical wreckage where the fireball damaged the trees?

I'd expect to see lots of physical wreckage...nothing there. Is this just a gaseous fireball? Hard to believe the entire plane disappeared underground. I think the 1st responders honest assessments that there was nothing there are most interesting.

Here's what I'd like to know. Supposedly, the physical remains are locked up in Iron Mountain...anyone know if that is true? What about 77...where did the wreckage go for that plane?

[Matsuflex]

344. The plane didn't disappear underground for God's sake

I don't know where people get that idea. The plane struck the ground so hard that it turned to rubble just like the Canberra WD991 crash I posted.


http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/Canberra%20WD991.htm

Flight 93's crash trajectory was low so most of the debris deflected off the ground and scattered into the woods just like if you skipped a rock across water.

[D_Duck]

384. Matsuflex, what do you mean?

Matsuflex, you dont believe most of Flight 93 was buried underground?

D.Duck

[vincent_vega_lives]

390. no clearly he does not

and neither do I. Some was, most wasn't.

[Matsuflex]

402. No and whoever believes a 757 can bury itself is a moron

Only a few parts of a plane would bury into the ground. One of Flight 93's engines did in fact. But whoever is trying to push that the entire plane did is on crack. Most of the debris from Flight 93 traveled into the forest. You can see where the traveling debris and explosion completely took out a section of the forest next to where it crashed.

[D_Duck]

417. It has to be planted

If all the debris is in the woods and spread over a large area, then it must have been planted, dont you know that?

D.Duck

[Matsuflex]

420. No I don't know that. Tell me

why you think I must know the debris must be planted in the woods.

[D_Duck]

422. Get real Matsu

Matsu,

You should know the official story is that 80% of the debris is in the hole, so whats it gonna be?

Where is the Big 757 debris?

D.Duck

[Matsuflex]

426. Where did officials say 80% of the plane was in the hole?

We've asked a couple time now and you conspiracy theorists haven't produced.

[Name removed]

435. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

437. Killtown? You're linking to a Killtown video?

Bye-bye.

[hoi_polloi]

446. That was odd.

Excuse me, but I am confused why a video from Killtown would be censored here. According to your policy, it says,

"...remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here."

Are you suggesting that those who are not accustomed to having their opinions challenged may, in fact, find it very comfortable to nestle themselves here and hide from something as innocuous as a video from Killtown?

[Bolo Boffin]

452. Perhaps your questions would be best answered by the moderators. n/t

[hoi_polloi]

449. Actually, this is kind of funny ...

Motsu said, "We've asked a couple time now and you conspiracy theorists haven't produced."

So in a way, he was asking for where it has been produced and provided that. I don't see it in your rules where it says "linking to Killtown's blogspot page warrants immediate deletion."

What is up with that?

[Matsuflex]

444. I know the 80% claim is BS

Why do you CTs keep bringing the claim up then?

(Your post got deleted, I saw what your subject line said though.)

[hoi_polloi]

447. Then you know a bit of the truth

The 80% claim is not made by people interested in the truth, it is made by the OCT.

It is actually the Official Conspiracy Theory which claims such an absurd number, because they have no explanation for the lack of debris. I have seen your pictures. Everyone interested in this case has seen those pictures. Those puny scraps do not refute that the plane does not exist, and has not ever existed. They are fabricated "evidence" put forth by OCT.

You have already confirmed our knowledge of this by you yourself denying the OCT claim.

[OnTheOtherHand]

448. link?

Does the Official Conspiracy Theory have an Official Manual?

(I've heard the 9/11 Commission report suggested as such a thing, but alas, the report appears to be silent on what proportion of the debris is supposed to have been buried.)

I found a story from a few weeks after 9/11 that reported that the FBI had recovered about 95% of the debris, but it was silent as to specifically where they had recovered it from.

[Name removed]

453. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

459. I missed it, but it should be possible to document this w/o linking to a video

if that's what happened.

(If it was just a generic comment on the idiocy of my question, or something like that, whatever.)

[Matsuflex]

467. Censoring the video makes me want to see it more

What the heck is on that video they don't want us to see?

[Bolo Boffin]

470. Oh, brother

Are you doing a stupid conversion charade? Don't you guys have ANYTHING better to do?

[Matsuflex]

472. Don't worry I'm not converting to a Democrat.

I prefer to keep taxes and spending low.

;-)

[Matsuflex]

450. Show me where the official story claims 80%

I still have not seen that claimed from you guys backed up. I think you guys are inventing that claim to cast suspicions on what happened.

[Bolo Boffin]

451. I did see the video

It's of a tour guide at Shanksville making the claim.

ETA: Excuse me, someone who appears to be a tour guide at what appears to be Shanksville making the claim.

[hoi_polloi]

454. Let's be fair to those who aren't allowed to watch the censored video.

tour guide? is that a really accurate description?

Pittsburgh Live, St. Petersberg Times, the Pennsylvania state department and others commented on the need to dig down deep. 45 feet according to Pennsylvania, actually. An alleged tour guide pointed out "80%" according to her script, wherever that came from.

You can bet that she - tour guide or actor - has been given the task of being a mouthpiece for the OCT.

But the OCT claims go along with that assertion. Doesn't this cause alarm bells to ring and red flags to wave for anyone else, or am I the only one that can understand the "problem" with this claim?

Apparently not, since even cynics like Mazu can understand that the idea is ludicrous.

The scraps are not there because they didn't have enough scrap to dump around the site. There was no magically disappearing/disintegrating plane that preserves passports and bandanas. Not in New York and not in Shanksville. There was no "crash" of "Flight 93."

[Bolo Boffin]

458. Wow. You've convinced me. I'm adding this to my schedule to worry about.

I think I have an opening in 2545 to worry about this. Is that good for you?

[hoi_polloi]

502. The sooner the better

But if it takes over 500 years for you to process that the OCT is garbage, then that will have to do.

[Matsuflex]

464. Where can I see this video?

Why can't it be posted here? I thought Democrats supported free speech. We've been asking for the CTs to back up their 80% claim and almost 500 posts later we can't even see it?

[Bolo Boffin]

469. The less this site has to do with Killtown, the better

He's a perennial sock puppet around here. I should have known that if Flight 93 denial got any airtime around here, he'd be lurking to chime in.

[Matsuflex]

471. I just want to see the video to debunk it.

Is the 80% claim only on video and not on print?

[hoi_polloi]

503. Not allowed on this site. They are not interested in truth.

Very good question, but will I be deleted and erased for posting a text source if I can find one?

[Bolo Boffin]

542. Anything that Killtown says that is true can be found someplace else

Killtown is a rabid, insane coward. Anything he says that might be true can be found someplace else. Fuck Killtown and his fruit loopery.

[Name removed]

557. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

559. LOL

> "A RESEARCHER is someone who takes information that exists in the world and ORGANIZES it for people to read, in order to better understand how the world around them operates."

And a PROPAGANDIST is someone who sifts and filters through information, discarding anything that contradicts the story he wants to tell, augments that story with deliberate distortion, and never corrects any errors.

[Realityhack]

594. Why wait for the tombstone... when you can just leave. n/t

[jberryhill]

538. Welcome to DU, and to the DUngeon

I thought Democrats supported free speech.


DU, like any privately-run forum has its own rules and limits. Democrats, like anyone else, also believe in private property and the management of DU is entitled to make its rules on what is, or is not, allowed to be linked to.

If you want to start a "free speech" discussion along the lines of "the jews did it", then enjoy your short stay here.

The site is not named "Free Speech Wonderland", and by your repeated reference to Democrats as being some group other than one which you support, others might wonder why you have decided to join DU. But, in any event, you are welcome to engage in whatever non-disruptive conversation you want, since unlike many other political forums, there are a range of views on just about any topic.

There are certain sites to which links are categorically not allowed. As you have been here all of three days, it is not likely you would be familiar with the historical reasons for these types of categorical bans. You will find, with all of about 10 seconds of Googling, that Killtown is categorically banned not only from DU, but from quite the collection of "9/11 truth" websites as well.

So, if you would like to have fun at DU, might I suggest not challenging longstanding and consistently enforced rules, for which there are historical reason, on your third day?

If Democrats are not your cup of tea, then you might consider joining FreeRepublic and entertaining yourself with the birthers over there, since you will find extremely similar habits of mind and argumentation.

[Matsuflex]

540. I just wanted to see this video CTs said proved this 80% claim

I think they took what she said and made it suit their agenda. Other than that, it was pretty tame. I really didn't see the big deal with it other than making to CTs look desperate.

[jberryhill]

543. I understand that

Then ask one who knows, or cares, for a link in a PM.

The video resides at a location against the rules which it is to link. (/yoda voice)

[hoi_polloi]

555. Google Blogger is a forbidden location?

I thought that was a pretty commonly used web site. Are all blogspots blocked by nature of them being free speech?

[jberryhill]

560. Welcome to DU

If you are unfamiliar with the policies here, and you have just signed up but do not like the policies here, then perhaps you might find an internet forum which conforms to what you would like the policies to be.

Have a nice time here.

[jberryhill]

548. "I think they took what she said and made it suit their agenda"

Somebody - call the newspapers - this is shocking information!

[hoi_polloi]

418. Are you calling this theory OCT?

Excuse me. I couldn't help noticing that you're disagreeing with the official story here by saying the plane didn't bury itself. You know the OCT says that the plane went like 80% (or more) underground? I am a researcher from 911movement.org and you sound like a NPTer.

[Matsuflex]

421. The plane crashed but didn't bury itself

I don't know why you conspiracy theorists keep bringing that myth up. What does "OCT" and "NPTer" mean?

[hoi_polloi]

423. Then where IS the plane?

What's so worrisome about the word 'conspiracy' - what you are talking about falls somewhere in between two things in our research known as OCT - Official Conspiracy Theory and NPT - No Plane Theory.

In OCT, the loose ends of the Government Party-line are tied up with stories that contradict each other.

In NPT, there is a strong body of evidence which says that the OCT makes no sense, and furthermore is mostly hogwash. Unfortunately for you, that's exactly what you've been doing to the OCT. Which is why I say again:

You have just demonstrated to the average citizen that point A from OCT - that 4 planes flown by hijackers crashed in exactly the way that the OCT describes the crashes - is false.

In case I must be more clear, OCT makes up for the lack of bodies, the lack of wreckage (let alone the lack of wreckage consistent with a 767, let alone the lack of wreckage consistent with alleged pictures of so-called Flight 93) with a bogus story that the evidence "buried itself" into the soil.

Since you have shown everyone that that is impossible, even to a layman, you have actually destroyed the OCT's evidence for Flight 93's existence.

I suggest you look up the names of those people supposedly on that flight and help the NPT answer the questions about why no full passenger list has ever been released, why no families came to San Francisco airport and why so many alleged passengers who HAVE been named are tied to the dangerous world of military contracting and the CIA.

[Matsuflex]

436. The plane is in the forest in little pieces

A few large pieces did survive.

[jberryhill]

539. OCT and NPT

OCT - Official Conspiracy Theory (or theorist) This term is used by those who know any of various "truths" as a response to being called "Conspiracy Theorists" or "CTer's". Pointing out that the "Official Story" (something of a strawman label in itself) involves a conspiracy, in accordance with the primary definition of the word, they then call the "Official Story" the "Official Conspiracy Theory", to neutralize the colloquial connotation of "conspiracy theory" as referring to a traditional sort of paranoid interpretation of historical events. One of my favorite variations is "OCTabots" - those of us who are actually paid government agents assigned to the task of making sure the startling truth does not escape from DU and lead to a global revolution, or something. Actually I don't get the point, I just do my job and cash the checks.


NPT - No Plane Theory (or theorist) This term refers to "no planers" of various kinds. There are full-on no-planers who do not believe that an aircraft was involved in the incidents in Shanksville, the WTC, or the Pentagon, and then there are "mix and match" no-planers who are more selective in which of the four incidents did or did not involve aircraft.

Many of the longtime DUngeon residents have taken up a rule not to engage NPTers. For example, way upthread you will notice that LARED asks, "Are you a no-planer?" flat out. Upon getting an answer that indicates our new pet is indeed a no-planer, LARED does not participate in the thread again.

Quite a few no-planers have been tombstoned in the past, and new ones pop up from time to time. The fact that they sound alike may simply have a lot to do with the fact that they are all reading from the same hymnal.

[hoi_polloi]

554. Can't keep a good theory down?

That's why they keep "popping up," by the way. You OCTer's live in a bubble world where the word conspiracy has no meaning, business men who perform insider trading are all benevolent "venture capitalists" and the use of semantics is more important to you than communication of facts.

Let's examine some:

OCT is a *more than fair* description of the official story, which is not actually a 'theory' but a disjointed series of media events and articles, collectively stating: evil brown men with box cutters conspired to overthrow the security of the most heavily protected nation on the planet, and what's more they orchestrated 3 successful attacks and 1 near-successful attack within a roughly 2-hour time frame.

No-Plane Theory is also a conspiracy theory.

You just don't like having to wrap your head around the idea that your fairy tale might just be that.

[jberryhill]

536. Throw a quarter really hard into the sand....

...you noted above that it was a former strip mine site.

That's soil that has been dug up and then redeposited to a substantial depth.

It's not like ordinary compacted soil, and it is one of the reasons why the crash site ended up looking the way it did.

[Matsuflex]

541. Are you talking about the engine that was found under?

[jberryhill]

544. Leaving aside the over-arching unsupported claim....

...that some given proportion, say 80%, was found under dirt, above dirt, in the woods or whatever, as you have ultimately concluded is the dumb inherent challenge of the thread; it os one of the two longstanding bits of regularly forgotten fact that, as a former strip mine site, it consists of soil that is more "spongy" and less well compacted than, say, your average layer of topsoil-over-clay.

I'm surprised the pre-existing trench in aerial photographs hasn't surfaced in this thread already (i.e. the trench visible from the strip mining operation itself).

I'm also disappointed that the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy wasn't pointed out at the appropriate invitation above (in regard to the "control" required to hit the field, as if it were an intended target instead of where the plane happened to crash).

So, what brings you here?

[hoi_polloi]

558. Crush a Coke bottle in a sandbox

What percentage of the can:

a) buried itself completely under a smooth 'gash'

b) exploded into the nearby woods

[Matsuflex]

564. The area wasn't sand.

Keep the comparisons somewhat accurate.

[hoi_polloi]

654. Right, I was being generous to the official theory

Try doing the same thing in manure.

[Matsuflex]

468. Unsubstantiated: 80% of the Flight 93 was found underground

Since the CTs haven't corroborated this claim I felt this title would be more appropriate.

[spooked911]

473. Not so-- this was the "final" official story

for instance, see Longman's book on flight 93 "Among the Heroes"

there are other mainstream sources

the official flight 93 memorial guide says 80% was in the hole
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6043811745819548037

[spooked911]

475. by the way, I didn't think this was so controversial!

I was just looking for evidence-- which I don't see that anyone has provided

[spooked911]

479. I am curious about how many officially how many human remains were found underground

seems like they only talk about pieces of human remains they found outside the hole-- and how little they found

but if the plane went mostly in the ground-- wouldn't the people go in the ground too?

[Matsuflex]

483. The plane DIDN'T mostly go in the ground

How many times do we have to tell you that? It mostly went into the forest. They found debris hanging from the trees. I think body parts too including teeth. A passenger seat was found in the woods along with two pieces of the fuselage, two of the largest pieces found. Part of the tail was found in the woods too.





“The tail was a short distance from the rest of the wreckage,” said would-be rescuer Brad Reiman, 19, who lives near Berlin in Somerset County. “It looked like the plane hit once and flopped down into the woods.”

The largest piece of wreckage he could identify looked like a section of the plane’s tail, he said. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12940.html


The crater caused by the impact was only 15 feet deep. A Boeing 757's length is about 155 feet long. You can see that most the plane didn't plow into the ground, but rather hit, broke up, left an imprint in the ground, and then bounced into the woods.

[spooked911]

485. of course there was some debris outside on the ground

Planted debris.

The problem is the lack of sufficient 757 debris outside the hole-- which is why several sources clearly say the plane went in the ground.

[Bolo Boffin]

488. What is your evidence that the debris was planted?

Who did it? Who saw them? Where did they get the plane debris from? Where did they get the human remains from?

[hoi_polloi]

507. What is your evidence that the debris is from Flight 93?

Furthermore, what human remains?

What do you actually think happened? What would be your "story" if you had to pick and choose various contradictions from the official story, which pieces would you use to construct your fairy tale? I'm just curious.

[Matsuflex]

497. 95% of the plane was recovered. Did you expect 100% to be?!

The plane crashed over 550 mph. There was lots of fuel still in the tanks. Frankly I'm surprised they were able to find 95%!

The sources you provided were an amateur video of a lady's misspeak and from a book. I would like to see an official source that backs up your 80% claim.

[Theobald]

477. Pathetic

Is that really all you have to prove your claim that the official story is that 80% of the plane was underground?

Video of one minimum wage tour guide and a vague reference to an entire book; can't you even give us the page number and a quote?

I've got one for you from the same book:

Page 277

"Even now, two weeks before christmas, rivets and wire littered the ground, as if someone had spilled a plane building kit. 95 percent of the plane had been recovered the FBI said, but thousands of splintered pieces lay about the field. Miller reached down and picked up a piece of the aluminum piece of the skin of the plane. "There were tons of this stuff" he said."

So Miller who was at the crash site claims that tons of airplane skin was skattered about the crash site and yet you use the same book to back up your claim that it is claimed that 80% of the plane was buried underground?

[spooked911]

484. have you read the book? I know it says that-- or something similar

I didn't take the time to find the page-- don't have time to look it up. Are you saying the book doesn't claim most of the plane was in the crater?

Here's an online citation:
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/10/news_pf/Worldandnation/Small_town_shoulders_.shtml

"The site had been mined for coal, then refilled with dirt. It was still soft when Flight 93 crashed, and firefighters said the Boeing 757 tunneled right in. They had to dig 15 feet to find it."

That sure sounds like most of the plane went in the ground.

Of course, officially, the black boxes-- located in the tail-- were found 15 and 25 feet underground. This source implies the plane went totally in the ground:

"The plane “went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn,” says Jim. Authorities were especially anxious to find Flight 93’s “black boxes” (cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder) in hopes of discovering what happened during the doomed flight.

The flight data recorder was located on September 13, some 15 feet underground. The following day, the cockpit voice recorder was unearthed at a depth of 25 feet. The cockpit recording was played in public for the first time this past April during the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was sentenced to life in prison for his role in the 9/11 attacks. "
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep2006/Feature2.asp

[Theobald]

494. We are not talking about my claims we are talking about

your claims. You claim that the final official story was that 80% of the plane was underground. You have proffered only a videotape of a tour guide saying that 80% of the plane was undergound as evidence to your claim. Other than that you have come up with nothing. The evidence you have proffered to back up your claim of the 'final' offficial story is non-existant or patheticlty weak.

I'm saying the book doesn't say 80% of the plane was in the crater. You have now moved the bar to 'most' of the plane being in the crater. So your new stipulation is that the final official story says that more than 51% of the plane was in the ground?

[spooked911]

490. Longman 1st edition hardcover, page 215

"The fuselage accordioned on itself more than thirty feet into the porous, backfilled ground. It was as if a marble had been dropped into water."

Granted, he doesn't say 80%-- but the implication is the vast bulk of the plane went in the ground.

[Matsuflex]

496. Is that from an official report, or a book?

Anybody can write anything. Looks like the author is just giving their opinion and a very bad one at that. People, cars, trucks, and heavy equipment was being operated on this field. If it was porous those people and vehicles would sink in.

[spooked911]

545. it was an official account in book form

and lots of news articles said the plane went in the ground because the soil was so soft.

now you're saying the ground was hard and the plane DIDN'T go in the ground?

[jberryhill]

549. No Spooked......

What's under dispute is this 80% figure.

Will pieces of something slamming into disturbed earth and disintegrating on impact at a reclaimed strip mine penetrate the ground and be covered (like throwing a quarter into the sand)? You betcha.

Will other pieces be scattered by the impact and explosion? You betcha.

Will they, or did they, do so in the proportion of 80%? Who knows or cares?

[Matsuflex]

565. I've said it all along, the plane didn't and wouldn't go under.

Some of the plane would, most wouldn't. The photos even show this. I've yet to see one news article that supports what you claim the official claim is. All you've produced is an amateur video of a tour guide misspeaking and you running with that to suit your agenda.

[Matsuflex]

478. She simply misspoke and you're trying to exploit that

This is pretty low of you guys. It's obvious that lady simply misspoke and meant to say that 80% of the plane was in the field, not crater. Here is a closeup of the crater and you can clearly see that only a handful of plane debris was found in the crater.



Right after she misspoke she starts to correct herself by saying "all of this debris field, this acreage here was full of debris" and then points out the debris field traveled down wind into the woods which caught fire and where also one of the engines was found.

The guy speaking in the background is obviously one of those who believes in the shoot down myth and was confronting her by asking about the early misleading reports of a second debris miles away. She's probably thinking "Oh no, not one of these kooks again" and fumbled her words around when trying to set this moron straight...as she does.

If the plane was shot down, debris would have been found before the crater, not after and especially miles after. The engine was found past the point of impact. If a missile shot off the engine, the engine would have landed well before where the rest of the plane crashed at.

[spooked911]

482. I never claimed the plane was shot down

my view is the crash site was faked

[Matsuflex]

486. Then why bring up the 80% claim

if you think the crash site was faked? Where did the plane go than and what happened to the passengers? What did they crash in the field instead?

[spooked911]

489. the point is the missing debris!

is this really so hard to understand?

[Matsuflex]

495. What missing debris? 95% of plane was recovered.

It traveled into the forest area. There are photos showing debris in the woods and along side the path to the pond where an engine part was found. There is a photo of a dumpster with tons of debris in it. Most of it was in the forest where its hard to see from an aerial view.

[hoi_polloi]

504. So you acknowledge that the "engine part" is supposed to be from Flight 93?

Just wondering, so you are saying that the "engine part" found has something to do with a Boeing 757? Even a 767? Is that what you actually believe when you look at the picture of it?

[Matsuflex]

509. I have no reason to believe it is not from Flight 93.

Are you suggesting a different plane was crashed there, or that they had people go out and dig a hole in the field without being seen and planted that engine part before the crash?

[hoi_polloi]

512. You have a perfectly good reason that you just gave.

People planting evidence will obviously not want to be seen. Therefore, it can be assumed that if the evidence doesn't match the flight, the people who put it there were hidden, no? Or at least playing other roles?

What's more, if they made the area LOOK ENOUGH like a crash with the short amount of time they had to fake things before people got suspicious, then there was no need for an actual crash.

Save a plane, control the story, no scary lurking variables.

Except of course.... that the evidence will EVENTUALLY be noticed for what it is: fake and planted.

9/11 is a time-delay fakery effort.

[Matsuflex]

534. Then how was that engine planted and when?

And without the many people who planted being noticed.

[hoi_polloi]

556. So you agree that if it was planted, it might require a 'conspiracy?'

Or would it - hypothetically - just be a coincidence that the people needed to conceal and dump the large plane part happened to all come up with the same idea at the same time, on a tuesday morning in september?

[Matsuflex]

566. I've asked you to show how and when they planted that engine

And doing so without being noticed.

[spooked911]

546. clearly they planted a bunch of debris-- but there is stil not enough for a 757

and most obviously no large parts such as the tail.

I don't buy the line that they recovered 95% of the plane.

[hoi_polloi]

553. there is not enough evidence that a plane crashed

because there was no plane.

[SDuderstadt]

562. So, you admit that you're a "no-planer"?

Great, this will save me considerable time in the future by not bothering to respond to you. Jesus.

[BooBluePotion]

491. So what came first?

The field of debris surrounding the crater or the crater? It appears the surrounding area near the crater is not charred. So was the forest set on fire by the explosion? It looks like the debris from the plane laying in the forest was never on fire. Do you understand that for the debris to reach a miles distance from the impact zone it would have traveled up into the air across a growth of trees and brush after the crater was made?

[Matsuflex]

498. The plane crashed at a low angle

It then was smashed into mostly small pieces which traveled into the forest and mutilated a section of it. Entire trees are missing along with the tops of a couple of trees broken off from being pelted. You can see where the rim around this destroyed forest section was burned by the explosion.

[planeman]

528. you are asking hard questions which the official story believers have no answer for

welcome to the forum-

[SDuderstadt]

529. No, you just don't like the answers, Planeman...

because they don't fit in with your CT worldview.

[hoi_polloi]

552. The official story is a conspiracy theory

But I guess that doesn't make sense to people who are so averted to the term 'conspiracy' that they cannot bother to look up the definition, or acknowledge that there is a historical precident for the word's EXISTENCE.

[planeman]

610. the only ct view is the story you believe in.and it is full of crap.

[Matsuflex]

501. Challenge: provide proof officials said 80% of Flight 93 was found underground

That's my challenge. I've only seen CTs provide an amateur video of lady who obviously misspoke and from a book by a civilian author.

[hoi_polloi]

511. For the record, though, the claim is obviously bogus, right?

I mean ... no matter who said it, it's a stupid idea. Right? Can we all agree on that?

[Matsuflex]

535. I already said it was.

Don't tell me you don't see the 3rd post from the top.

[hoi_polloi]

551. Ergo, the official story is garbage

Because they're saying exactly what you say is impossible.

Get it?

[AZCat]

561. No, that's not right.

So far, nothing has been produced to show the "official story" claims what the OP says it does.

[Matsuflex]

568. Can you believe we are approaching 600 replies

and they still haven't proved what they say the official claim says.

[AZCat]

575. Most definitely.

We are at ~7-1/2 years after the event and they haven't proved anything (except that they're really, really bad at engineering, logic and basic research), so why should a mere 600 post thread be any different?

[Domenick]

582. flight 93 did not crash in shanksville and you cant prove it did but......

i can prove it didn't and layout how it was all done.....

i know more about shanksville than anyone you're going to encounter here.....

i cant start a thread to lay it all out but heres a start for you

While I can only speculate the true event that caused the crater I will choose not to and instead focus on what didn’t create the 15’ x 20’ hole that was 10’ deep. That is a Boeing 757.

Part I : The Crash Site & Crater and Origins Thereof

To date the FBI has not presented anything near enough evidence to support the claims of over 90% of United Airlines Flight 93 being recovered from the Shanksville crash site. The only piece of recognizable debris in the 10’ deep hole is part on an engine. Coincidentally enough one witness I spoke with who stood in front of that hole that morning swore up and down to me there was no way there was an entire airplane in it. He stated that he had flown on plenty of commercial airliners in his life and was well familiar with how large they are and told me that the hole was more like the size of an engine than an entire plane.

Of all the witnesses I spoke with, including Coroner Wally Miller, I waited for one of them to describe to me the massive 100’ gash in the ground caused by the impacting wings yet not one of them ever made any mention of this. But like all the other witnesses I have spoken with even Wally Miller when recalling the event was still astonished at the size of it. He wanted to clarify that the images most people seen showing this big hole in the ground were after the work had been done there and what it was that morning resembled nothing of the sort.

Bob Blair and Doug Miller were driving on Route 30 that morning. Suddenly they noticed a low flying plane flying with its wings vertical to the ground. As they approached Stoystown Auto Wreckers they watched it disappear behind the treeline. Not long thereafter they noticed smoke rising up and drove towards it. As they approached the crash site someone driving away from it in a pickup truck flagged them down and told them a plane had crashed and then drove off away from the scene. Was this Lee Purbaugh? At this time one can only assume.

Bob and Doug said when they arrived at the scene there was no one else present. Bob stated whoever they had passed had to be the 1st person to see as they were no doubt 2nd & 3rd . What they found when they got there astonished them. There was nothing. There were some fires. Bob and Doug immediately grabbed the fire extinguishers they carry in the work truck and extinguished what fires there were before the arrival of Stoystown Fire Department .

Both had stated they did not see neither human remains nor any recognizable airplane debris. Bob further stated he saw a burning tire that they had a heard time extinguishing and something that resembled a gear box as he called. Both corroborated others stories of how small the crater actually was.

What I find most troubling is that it took me nearly 5 minutes to drive to the crash site from Stoystown Auto Wreckers and Rollock Scrap Yard is less than 100 yards from the crash site and yet none of their employees seemed to have gone out to the scene. Instead it was Bob & Doug arriving several minutes later.

Personally, I think the lack of witnesses from Rollock and the man driving away from the scene all saw something else but we’ll save that for later.

In between where Bob & Doug saw the plane and its alleged final resting place was Viola Saylor. Outside in her backyard that morning Viola heard the massive roar of the planes engines as it passed by just above the treetops on her property. She was walking towards her backdoor when the plane came screaming directly over her house right at her. She described feeling a “pressure” as it passed overhead and said it had taken the leaves off the tops of the trees . And it passed. And then the noise was gone. Everything became real quiet and she heard someone in the distance scream “Oh my God!!!”. Then there was a thud.

Viola lived very close to the crash site at that time. Had the plane crashed as alleged she would have never had noticed a silence let alone hear someone cry out in the distance before it impacted. The plane was traveling over at an alleged 500mph.

Since Lee Purbaugh the only alleged impact witness chose not to speak with me after receiving advice from an attorney I have to turn to Susan McElwain for what took place next.

Susan was on the opposite end of Viola. She was driving north that morning on Bridge St. in Stoystown less than a mile southwest of the crash site. First lets talk about what Susan did not see on her side of the crash site : a 757. Allegedly while Susan is approaching the stop sign and her experience takes place a 757 is diving towards the ground less than a mile in front of her. Susan did not see one because it was already gone.

As for where it went that we’ll get into later.

Suddenly a small white plane passes right over Susan’s vehicle flying so low to the ground it has to pull up in order to avoid crashing into the row of trees at the Bridge St & Buckstown Rd intersection. It is so low in fact that Susan’s first thoughts were “Oh my God, he’s gonna crash, he’s gonna crash”. The plane vanished behind the treeline and seconds later a smoke cloud began to rise.

In between both of these witnesses are 2 witnesses I am not making public per their request but who have told me their stories in detail even after initially denying seeing anything.

One woman’s husband witnessed the whole event. He is deceased now. She would not tell me what he told her but elected to say “I can only tell you what I saw”. Her husband was on the porch when it happened. She was in the house. She heard a thud. Puzzled by it she went outside to see what had happened. When she got out there she noticed her husband was looking off towards the trees and that there was a small little white plane in the sky. She said seconds later she began to notice smoke rising up over the treeline directly below this “strange little white plane” as she described it. She then further corroborated Susan’s description of it but adding that it had a small window on the front which led her to believe it had an occupant. When I inquired as to whether it was capable of carrying passengers like a small corporate plane she clearly stated this was not possible.

Also outside at this time was her neighbor who I also spoke with. The neighbor arrived outside after the smoke had started to rise but other than that corroborated every single other detail the previous witness stated.

Southwest of the crash site was the Salt Mill where Rick Chaney was working when this event took place. Rick felt a rumble and noticed everyone else seemed to be heading to go outside. He then followed. When he got outside he described seeing a small white plane which he too confirmed was not any type of passenger plane or corporate plane and could not accommodate groups of people. Said it looked military but not like anything he had ever seen before and that it made him think it was some sort of scout plane or something similar.

The other inconsistency is that the blast trajectory of the impact and the flight path conflict. One aerial photo clearly demonstrates the blast trajectory into the woods is in a southwest direction while Viola’s house is located northwest. Indian Lake is southeast of the crash site. This little fact was argued about with me by Wally Miller who insisted Indian Lake was in the direction of the trajectory but clearly this is not true.


Part II : If Not Shanksville Then Where?

In Loose Change : Final Cut Indian Lake Mayor Barry Lichty elaborates on his experience that morning. He says the power had gone off and he felt a tremor and then he heard what “sounded like a missile” come over his house because it was “going that fast”. Then he states that it “was coming from that direction” .

Barry says it wasn’t the aircraft that crashed though because Flight 93 never flew anywhere near of over Indian Lake according to the official story of it. But that’s because Barry has no reason to suspect the government is lying to him. There is no other explanation for what went screaming from the crash site immediately after the explosion than it was the plane witnessed by Bob, Doug, & Viola which if it continued to fly would have been in a direct path with Indian Lake.

Viola said that in order for the plane to have crashed the way they said it did compared to the way it was when she saw it the plane would have had to pull up and then nose dive into the ground which of course is aerodynamically impossible. It is interesting also to note that Viola turned down an opportunity to be an Official Ambassador at the Flight 93 Memorial because “I wouldn’t go along with the stories”.

So how do we get from the crash site to Indian Lake? Is there any witness in between the two to confirm this flight path?

The answer is yes and who it is will surprise you : Val McClatchey.

Val McClatchey lives Southeast of the crash site directly in between the site and Indian Lake. On the morning of 9/11 Val was sitting on her couch when she first heard Flight 93 fly over head. The problem is Flight 93 never flew over her house. After she heard the plane she said she looked outside the window and caught a glimpse of it before it crashed. But knowing what I know from all the other eyewitnesses this simply cannot be true.

She only could have heard Flight 93 flyover towards the crash site as Susan did not see the plane and I have corroborated her claims of the small white plane being there at the exact time with the other eyewitness discussed earlier.

Claims of Flight 93 flying over Indian Lake can be found in every local paper in Pennsylvania and lists a group of names for being having heard the plane fly overhead including : Indian Lake Marina Manager Jim Brandt, Indian Lake Marina Employees John Fleegle and Carol Delasko, Indian Lake Golf Course Employee Chris Smith, and Jim Stop who was reportedly fishing in Indian Lake and actually watched the plane fly overhead. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review Jim witnessed the plane losing pieces as it flew over.

No one at Indian Lake can ever hear Flight 93 flyover if the official story is true. Indian Lake is 3 miles southeast of the alleged impact site. No one witnessed Flight 93 approach the crashsite from the Southeast but from the Northwest. This indicates the plane continued on past the alleged impact spot in a direct line most likely ascending.

Part III : What Happened to the Passengers?

This is always the last question people have when told a plane did not crash in the Shanksville field. Which while we’re at it isn’t even really Shanksville but Lambertsville. This is just another thing the American people have been lied to about. But onto the story of Wally Miller and human remains…..

Not one person witnessed human remains at the Flight 93 crash site on 9/11. Despite many people searching for remains of anything throughout the immediate area none were seen. Naturally I found this to be very surprising when Wally Miller showed me the photographs he took on the following day after stating he too did not discover any remains on the 11th.

The photographs Wally took showed very little evidence of human remains. So little one could attribute it all to coming from one human being. There were several photos of a severed left arm, a couple which appeared to be a human scalp, and lastly a couple of what appeared to be an organ perhaps a heart or lung it was hard to distinguish in the photo. The amazing part is that all of these remains photographed by Wally on the 12th were in plain view laying in dirt. The only dirt in the vicinity is the dirt road which the plane allegedly crashed by. Everyone was traveling up and down this road and many people wondered off into the area of the blast trajectory into the woods. None reported seeing any such thing and let me tell you the half an arm would have easily been noticed.

Wally Miller never found a drop of blood at the crash site. Despite a severed arm laying in dirt along with what appeared to be internal organs none of them left a single trace of blood where they were recovered.

Instead the FBI recovered the remains and proceeded to bring them into the DMORT facility they erected for Miller and the task of identifying the deceased. The FBI then in turn would bring the remains to Miller without any proper documentation of their chain of custody or place of location.

The FBI also provided Miller the list of names of who he would find and provided samples of those said individuals to Miller.

So they gave Miller the names of the victims, the remains of the victims, & the DNA samples to test against those remains to confirm their identities. The FBI took Wally Miller by the hand and led him down the path of the deceived. And with that they accomplished their necessary ending to their story in Shanksville.

That is my conclusion based on over 2.5 years researching hands on with many many hours logged interviewing eyewitnesses in person, over the phone, through email, & on video. Taken their accounts and seeing how they fit with the little one sentences released by the corporate media of other witnesses and putting the puzzle together.

Ultimately I cannot tell you what happened to the plane that fly in front of Bob Blair & Doug Miller, passed Viola Saylor, & then heard flying overhead by McClatchey and all the Indian Lake residents. But I can tell you it did not crash in a field in Lambertsville on the morning of 9/11 and the case made that it did by the US Government and 9/11 Commission and corporate media fails epically to scrutiny and a new fully open public transparent hearing is necessary to finally finding out and understanding the truth of what really happened on the morning of 9/11.

Recommended links :

Flight 93 Shanksville : 9/11 Truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4i6mBekt-8>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4i6mBekt-8


9/11 : The Shanksville Files Vol I : Susan McElwain :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8051395578107358759&ei=NMunSa_hB4qsrALV0pCfAQ&q=susan+mcelwain&hl=en>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=80...+mcelwain&hl=en

9/11 : The Shanksville Files Vol II : Wally Miller :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2456935081384261617&ei=VsunSdLHC5TWqALcz4XrDw&q=wally+miller&hl=en>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=24...ly+miller&hl=en

9/11 : The Shanksville Files Vol III : Viola Saylor :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4294299673604153311&ei=dcunSZWuKpK-rwKM4Y3mCg&q=viola+saylor&hl=en>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...la+saylor&hl=en

Pandora’s Black Box Vol III : Flight of United 93 :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1695850318850681282&ei=mMunSY6yM5PiqQL9wqj0Cw&q=pandoras+black+box&hl=en>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...black+box&hl=en

Loose Change : Final Cut :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598&ei=Es2nSa3iL5LQjwKOrcCAAg&q=loose+change+final+cut&hl=en>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...final+cut&hl=en


Pittsburgh Post Gazette Coverage of Flight 93 :

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/93index9.asp>http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/93index9.asp

Pittsburgh Tribune review Flight 93 archives :

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/?searchwords=flight+93&searchoption=%2Fx%2Fsearch%2F&x=20&y=15>http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/?se...ch%2F&x=20&y=15

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8069003202759904270&ei=z4DWScDlE5OEqwLL8fXzBg&q=new+world+order+disorder&hl=en>new world order disorder

[Domenick]

590. while im here let me add eyewitness john fleegle.....

who was at indian lake and describes hearing the plane fly over top of indian lake prior to the explosion further collaborating barry lichty's comments in loose change final cut proving the plane did not crash in shanksville but continued onward in the same direction viola saylor saw it heading as it passed over her house which is in direction contradiction with the blast trajectory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3iVy0RHfak


and now you all know why mark roberts and ron wieck backed out of debating me after roberts offered the challenge to me.......

[planeman]

612. thanks you Dominic. n/t

[Domenick]

589. so skeptics how much of what where officially?

how much of flight 93 is said to have been recovered?

where did the government say it was recovered from?

here http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ , maybe the :

"The Obi-wan Kenobi of debunkers"

can help you answer the above so this can progress forward?

[Matsuflex]

615. 95% was recovered.

If you discount that, please tell us why.

[planeman]

633. umm-because we have not seen any evidence that they found 95 %

of the plane.how does that sound mr flex.

[vincent_vega_lives]

641. Ther e are quite a few things

that you have not seen any evidence of that are true.

[procopia]

642. Have you seen the evidence?

How do you know it's true?

[vincent_vega_lives]

643. I have seen the same evidence on the internet everyone else has

and find nothing suspicious about it.

[procopia]

644. You find nothing suspicious

or incredible about a terrorist's passport surviving a fireball and floating down to land atop a pile of rubble to be easily found in nearly pristine condition?

[OnTheOtherHand]

646. paper documents landed in Brooklyn

If the presence of "a terrorist's passport" were somehow crucial to The Official Story, I would be worried. As far as I know, it's pretty much irrelevant.

[procopia]

647. Paper documents from the plane?

that exploded in a fireball?

[OnTheOtherHand]

648. I didn't read the documents

However, if you're suggesting that paper shouldn't have survived the planes, I think it's a weak argument. Explosions... explode. If you have pertinent evidence that this is unlikely, I'd be happy to hear it.

By the way, did you concede that the question is pretty much irrelevant, or are you reserving judgment on that?

[procopia]

649. What else was recovered

from flight 11?

[OnTheOtherHand]

650. how would I know, and why does it matter?

I guess I've seen this movie before.

[procopia]

651. You don't find it remarkable that the only things

allegedly recovered from flight 11 were that miracle passport and a piece of landing gear? Not even a supposedly indestructible black box...

[OnTheOtherHand]

652. that is untrue

It's not true that the only things allegedly recovered from the flight are a passport and a piece of landing gear. See Debris

Do I find it remarkable that a terrorist's passport was allegedly recovered from the flight? Sure. I also find your apparent inability to answer simple questions remarkable, albeit less unusual.

[vincent_vega_lives]

677. The "plane"

didn't explode in a fireball. Things like aluminum don't typically explode. The fuel, when aerosolized on impact and then ignited by a spark exploded in a fireball, this is well after (relatively speaking) the structure of the aircraft was crumpled and disintegrated by the impact with the ground. So who knows where those paper documents ended up when the wall of hot gas preceding the fireball blew them where they eventually came to rest. Only flammable material that WASN'T dislocated from the wreck would have been burned up in the crash.

But feel free to completely oversimplify a complex event for your own benefit.

[planeman]

659. I would confidently say less than 10 %-pathetic- its all they have.

[hoi_polloi]

653. Getting back on thread, how much of the plane was buried?

Interesting to note that the Official Story-tellers can't answer this question.

I wonder if it is asking them to *think* too much?

[AZCat]

662. Interesting to note that you think this question is relevant.

Perhaps you could explain why you do?

[defendandprotect]

676. There are also reports that this "crater" existed long before 9/11 . . .

[travis80]

678. great post spooked. i read they are saying most of the plane was dug out of the ground

and as you pointed out, they only showed one medium-sized piece coming out of the ground. that's a wide discrepancy.