WAKE UP AMERICA from PROPAGANDA!!! Flight 93 movie.

[Rainscents]

I can't believe, people are still sleep at the wheel, please check out this short video! I thought, people had waken up from almost 6 years of lies!!! When I heard the other day on the radio AP news, Bush and the Company approved (gave green light for release to public) the "Flight 93 movie", I knew then, this movie is another propaganda!!!

http://www.freepressinternational.com/flight-93-no-debris.html

[Warpy]

1. It's the first GOP campaign ad for the 2006 election

Don't kid yourself that it's anyting else.

Sure it's inspiring. It's also manipulative as hell.

[dailykoff]

8. Yep.

I expect one big superbowl commercial after another leading up to a grand finale, like the live broadcast of Moussaoui's execution on election eve 2008.

[EFerrari]

84. Bingo. n/t

[EVDebs]

113. If no mention of the wargames that were going on on Sept 11, 2001

get made, then this movie does promote a distorted view of what TRULY took place on that flight.

The media makes very little mention of those wargames, and for good reason. The FAA's computer systems along with other defense dept monitoring systems could have been tweaked to further the attack, making military interception impossible etc.

It also gives obvious credence to the LIHOP/MIHOP possibilities that the media doesn't want an honest disussion of.

[Jazz2006]

144. The movie does mention the wargames. n/t

[EVDebs]

147. Great. THAT will be the start point for an even BETTER movie

...as it holds the key to getting at least some of the planes through our air defenses (sic).

[Hissyspit]

2. Yes, where is the movie that shows that none of 9/11 should have happened

AT ALL! - that the Bush administration through stupidity, sociopathy, arrogance and pre-planning let the WORST-EVER attack on the continental United States occur and it is an ON-GOING criminal administration. Where is that 9/11 movie?

[Mizmoon]

3. What is propaganda about it?

As far as I can tell it's an honest attempt at a reenactment. What's wrong with that?

[KyuzoGator]

5. ...And from what I understand, it's non-partisan and well-made.

Much ado about nothing, I think. My only problem with the film is that people are profiting from it.

[Mizmoon]

9. I work in the Woolworth Building

plenty of people have profited off of 9/11 for some time. The hole is a major tourist attraction now. It's the way of things. People have to eat. Just my opinion. Maybe I'm jaded.

[scot]

24. My favorite NYC building. The Cathedral of Capitalism.

[scot]

22. The profit business is my main concern as well.

I've heard very little comment on it.

[Burning Water]

94. Well no one

is going to invest money in a movie, or anything else, if they don't figure to profit by it. It's just not the way humans do things.

[mrcheerful]

73. Really, then how come they show bombs strapped to the terrorists?

Remember, box cutters were the only thing the terrorists could get on the planes and that has been said over and over.

[EVDebs]

114. Read post #113 about the wargames and try to find out more

What about Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Vigilance, Northern Guardian, Tripod II, and the CIA/NRO's 'plane into building' exercise going on that day ?

"" CIA / National Reconnaissance Office "plane into building" exercise Associated Press, August 21, 2002 simulation of a plane crash into the NRO headquarters (near Dulles Airport, Virginia) - this was not a "terrorism" exercise but it did result in the evacuation of most NRO employees just as the "real" 9/11 was taking place, making it more difficult for the nation's spy satellites to be used to track the hijacked planes
Vigilant Guardian Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 3, 2002, Newhouse News, others (these articles are reproduced below) The publicly available mass media articles about these exercises state that they were similar enough to the actual events that top NORAD personnel were confused, not sure if 9/11 was "part of the drill" or a real world event.
Vigilant Warrior Richard Clark, "Against All Enemies" (March 2004) referenced by Richard Clark.
Northern Vigilance Toronto Star, December 9, 2001 "Operation Northern Vigilance, planned months in advance, involves deploying fighter jets to locations in Alaska and northern Canada." This ensured that there would be fewer fighter planes available to protect the East Coast on 9/11. Simulated information was fed into radar screens - is this what confused the air defenses that morning?
Northern Guardian Toronto Star, December 9, 2001 only mention was in the early edition of this article, no details publicly available (probably related to Northern Vigilance)
Tripod II
US Department of Justice and City of New York Rudolph Giuliani's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, May 2004 biowar exercise in New York City scheduled for September 12, 2001""

from http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

Begin asking, who had forknowledge of these wargames ? Who could exploit those wargames if given the opportunity ?

What about Indira Singh and her whistleblowing about Ptech (now known as GoAgile) ? Are investigations 'spiked', as Greg Palast has reported...and why ?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. OMG! where is the debris??

I had never seen film of the site before, (well maybe on TV the day it happened, when I was in shock) ... where is the plane? Does a plane crashing into the ground make a hole like that?

[longship]

12. That's why pilots call it "augering in"

Does a plane crashing into the ground make a hole like that?

Let's see. Long slender fuselage. 300+ mph. High angle with respect to ground.
Yup.

What would you expect? No hole?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

16. thanks for the info...

So, where are the huge chunks? Or does it just disintegrate? I am asking because I am uneducated, not stupid.

[longship]

18. Energy of collision == 2 billion joules

That would crush any airplane into teeny pieces.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

21. Would the force of the crash

throw parts 2-3 miles away? There are reports of parts scattered up to 8 miles away. I'm not linking to any of them here, because most look...fishy.

[longship]

65. It could happen.

An augering in airplane would stress the airframe and could have things falling off. Typical are wings shearing off, jet engines, etc. It's also possible that the fuselage could break if the plane is twisting or spinning. These aerodynamic stresses are beyond what the airplane was designed to take.

I'm not sure how flight 93 hit, or if it was whole when it did, but parts found 2-3 miles away would not be unusual. We're talking a huge amount of energy here.

[Rainscents]

30. Yea right, you still believe in that BS!

[longship]

37. Yes, I believe in physics.

It's a simple calculation.

K.E. = 1/2 m * v * v

Figure it out yourself.

[Balbus]

51. physics, shmisicks - it was aliens.

[longship]

53. Naw! It was Hale-Bopp.

;-)

[mirandapriestly]

99. The "physics" of this are much more complex than

looking up the word "joules" in the dictionary. People are tricked by mass media campaigns and they are tricked by faux scientific explanations.

[Tuesday_Morning]

104. So true

I find the movie troubling because it helps cement this story in the public's mind. It's a moving story and we can feel good about ourselves. Never mind all the unanswered questions of which there are plenty. Instead it's: We know what happened. We saw the movie.

Please check this link from the Family Steering Committee:
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

It's a list of questions from the Family Steering Committee to the 9/11 Commission. Many of these never got answered in any satisfactory way.

Focussing on the physics, the crash site, etc is tricky. Most of us can't really argue one way or another. But there are so many other questions left unanswered.

[longship]

107. You can't argue that way.

Look it. The only thing we have to fall back on in these instances is our ability to reason. The best way to do that is to use intellectual tools at our disposal. My posts here are merely to respond the very questions and pronouncements in this thread.

The tin foil hat crowd make all sorts of technical pronouncements, and make all sorts of technical arguments. But when somebody responds with a technical explanation that is counter to their pet beliefs, they screech "faux scientific explanation". This is ingenuous at best, and shows an unwillingness to listen to any explanation that rises above their appalling ignorance.

Could it be that the conspiracy-centric folks are not really interested in the truth. Maybe their sole purpose in life is the adherence to a theology of conspiracy which is based solely on the false presumption that *everything* is a conspiracy. I cannot understand what comfort they find in such a cultic way of life. Skepticism is a healthy thing, but rank cynicism solely for its own sake accomplishes nothing.

My background is in physics and engineering with several years at Boeing Aircraft Co. Unlike the tin foil hat crowd, I'm not making this shit up. This is how things work. The tin foil mad hatters would do well to educate themselves on how things work.

[Tuesday_Morning]

138. That hasn't been my experience at all.

The "tin foil hat crowd" in general seems very interested in the truth...whatever it may be and wherever it may lead them...because anybody who looks at this honestly and deeply is very likely to come to the conclusion that there are way too many unanswered and troubling questions here.

And I know I don't have a need for conspiracy. Honestly, I know very little about the Kennedy assassination. I don't pay much attention to a lot of conspiracy stuff. I do resent the way some folks dismiss the idea of conspiracy. Some people cross their eyes about the election and dismiss it just like that: "Of course, it wasn't stolen - it would have required too many people!" Watergate was once just a second-rate (or was it a third-rate?) burglary. Iran-Contra? Just more of those folks looking for more conspiracy?

And I must admit that for a while I ignored the 9/11 truth movement. I thought it was a bunch of people who were naturally very upset and looking to blame someone. How wrong I was.

Look at how the Bushites have profited from 9/11. And then look at the unanswered questions.

[Codeine]

167. Great post!

:applause: :applause: :yourock:

It's nice to know there are people who are still interested in reality.

[sam sarrha]

32. it is hard to fly straight down.. the wings give lift especially at 400+mp

i could see an MD80 doing that because of the position of the wings, but it is curious .. the weirdest is the Pentagon crash.. there wasn't any parts to speak of..did they ever find any bodies..?/ and where is the security camera film from the pentagon and other buildings around there..?? nada/nothing.. too weird, i cant believe that one

[longship]

34. Who said "straight down"???

I said high angle of attack, not straight down.

[sam sarrha]

43. look at the hole, crater splash is pretty equal all around, acute angle

[longship]

55. A projectile makes a round hole

Look at the moon. The craters are all circular. Yet the meteors that hit the moon must have hit at a variety of angles. The fact is, contrary to what one would expect, no matter what the angle of the collision, the crater is still round.

The same thing happens when an airliner hits the ground. The crater is symmetric, not elongated.

[FourScore]

105. This is an interesting article

with ALOT of links to other plane crashes to compare with the 93 crash. If you don't want to read the article (although it is interesting) just scan down the page to the links. It makes you wonder.

[longship]

6. What are you saying?

nt

[Rainscents]

10. What I'm saying... Just like Pentagon, where the hell is the airplane

debris??? LARGE plane parts??? No where to be seen!

[Mizmoon]

11. Have you seen the Popular Science "debunking" article?

They address that question. If you did read it, what did you find unconvincing about it? I'm not a science mavin, but it made sense to me.

[Rainscents]

17. Where there's airplane crash, you would have debris all over the place

with, airplane parts, body parts and suit-cases. None of these were recovered from the sight.

[longship]

28. Think!

The airplane is flying into the ground at a high angle of attack (nose down). The plane was likely going 300 mph when it hit. It's gonna make a hole in the ground. The wings are going to shear off. One of the engines was found 300 yards away; having had bounced over the ground when the wing disintegrated.

You won't find anything that looks like an airplane because it would be crushed beyond recognition.

If the airplane was mostly intact when it hit, there's not going to be a large debris field. If there was an explosion on the plane while it was in the air, the debris field would be a big one. Since the debris field of UAL93 was small, it is not likely that it was shot down, contrary to what the tin foil hat crowd claims.

At those speeds, a 757 collision dissipates well over a billion joules of energy.

[Rainscents]

35. Ok, if you say so... I don't buy it!

[Pastiche423]

59. Who saw the plane

flying into the ground at a high angle of attack (nose down)?

I need a link to believe who it was.

[longship]

67. Don't need to see it.

All one has to do is to look at the result.

The size of the crater. The distribution of the pieces. One can infer that it augered in by the result of the collision. One does *not* have to see it happen.

It's called science. It works.

[Pastiche423]

74. The result of what?

A crater in the middle of a field w/very little parts of anything explains jack.

[longship]

78. Well, to the uneducated, maybe.

But to a airplane crash investigator who knows their physics and engineering the crash scene reveals a lot. Also, there were eyewitnesses who saw the plane crash.

From eyewitness accounts and on the scene investigation it was determined that the plane crashed upside down at an angle of 45 degrees at 600 mph. That's why there were few parts. The airliner disintegrated on impact. It seems that the tin foil hat crowd wants the airframe to remain intact after a collision like that. It doesn't work that way.

[Pastiche423]

80. Don't happen to have a link to those eyewitness accounts, do you?

TIA

[longship]

82. Remember the guy's farm where it hit?

He witnessed it.

Doesn't anybody around here know how to use Google. It took me two seconds to find this link:
Flight 93 Eyewitness Accounts

There were many eyewitnesses.

[MyNameGoesHere]

91. And yet the

voice recorder was recovered and voila it had usable data on it. Or did it? Funny this is the only plane that there is a recording recovered. So using the physics logic did the other planes hit so much harder that the boxes were disintegrated? BTW a data recorder can sustain about 3400 g's. or 3.05576761 × 1017 joules. So why did the other boxes not show up? If this data is real, why can't someone just release it and be done with the mystery. It has only been "played" in controlled audiences and not by the usual governing authority the NTSB. Physics is cool but what about the other questions surrounding this?

And as for the crater, I have seen military jets 1/4 the size and fully loaded with fuel impact the ground at 600 knots. The crater made was basically the same size as this one on 93. So here we have a plane 4 times the size, 3 times the weight, and almost 5 times the fuel load creating a similar crater. <The fuel igniting acts much like a bomb adding to the destruction at impact> So you can see why some people can't let this pass the smell test. Maybe.

[longship]

109. It's a function of energy.

If you took the trouble to actually measure the size of the craters (which is precisely what crash investigators do) you'll find that the relative sizes would be proportional to the energy of the crash. There are other parameters to consider, like the composition of the ground where the plane hits. It doesn't appear that you've done the simple task to compare the actual sizes of military jet crater with the UAL93 one, have you? You only look at a couple of pictures and make the claim that they are of similar size. That's not a very scientific way to go about things and will undoubtedly lead you to the wrong conclusions.

Furthermore, crash investigators do not start with presumptions and proceed to find data to support them. They look at the data on the scene and form conclusion based on the facts. So, they measure the crater and form an opinion on the energy of the crash. Then they look at the distribution of the debris and form conclusions on why or how the airplane crashed. They can quickly determine some putative conclusions based on these things, but it is a very arduous task often taking months to form a complete model of what happened. The important thing here is that the fact gathering precedes the conclusions.

That doesn't seem to happen with the tin foil hatters who work with incomplete facts and try to fit them to their preconceived notion that there's a evil global conspiracy. Facts under these conditions become mere means to an end, not a methodology to find the truth. What's scary about this is that is precisely what ChimpCo has been doing for five years.

[MyNameGoesHere]

122. Actually

i have been at real military crash sites, with live ammunitions involved. there is plenty on file also if you know where to look. typical wet weight of the military aircraft were approx 58k lbs. lets say the 757 was at almost full weight. around 200k lbs. max of 255k. Also according to the investigators it had exceeded the airframe limits by 60 knots, upside down at a 45 angle. Why were the wings still attached when it crashed? Also the few plane crashes i have been close to involved hard concrete and farmland. pretty much makes a nice crater either way. So what you have done is assumed that i know nothing of aviation mishaps and concluded i have a tinfoil hat on. This will surely lead you to the wrong conclusion. My only question really is why this flight? Why is the only surviving record of all 4 crashes that day? BTW the crater is recorded at about 10 feet deep and 20 feet wide. I just find this small compared to other crash sites i have been to. Especially in light of the supposed 600 knot impact and near full fuel. And if you look at airdisaster.com you can compare many sites and type aircraft. All of those crashes actually have tiny to large pieces of airframe recovered.

I don't have the power of the US government to do my own investigation, nor the same weight to cover up or release what they want you to know.

[longship]

124. Airline Mfgrs do their own investigation.

When I worked at Boeing I knew a couple of these guys. They have no agenda other than to determine the cause and effect of the accident. Such information is invaluable to the mfgr to improve safety and reliability of their product. I cannot imagine any company allowing any government agency, let alone their own oversight agency, convincing them to participate in a cover-up. It's just not in the interest of a company like Boeing to do that. The last thing Boeing wants is something like that to become public. Such a thing could ruin them. How many airlines would buy Boeing planes if it were known that they falisified their accident reports? How many people would want to fly on them?

I think that UAL93 flew into the ground in the field in PA. Whether it broke up prior to hitting ground I don't know. I don't think it was shot down, but I have no definitive information to rule that out. All I do know is that the evidence clearly points to something large, like an airliner, hitting at high velocity in that field. Given that many people saw an airliner crash, and with all the other accounts from the very passengers onboard, I think we can, without any doubt, deduce that it was UAL93. It is also that field where the black boxes were found along with personal effects from the passengers. I haven't seen much of any information that would lead me in any other direction. The whole body of evidence clearly points to the events as reported.

This is where the tin foil hatters get it wrong. They are so willing to have a global conspiracy that they see conspiracy at all levels. At one point one has to draw the line and say enough is enough. They also pick at individual facts and lose the big picture.

If it wasn't UAL93 that crashed in PA, then what the fuck was it? And if it wasn't UAL93, what the fuck happened to UAL93? How does the entire body of evidence lead you to believe your story and not the one that tells of UAL93 crashing in that PA field?

You guys are great about picking at the minutia. Let's hear your story. What really happened? I can't wait to hear it.

[ContraBass Black]

93. Search Google to find pictures of large pieces of the Pentagon plane.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

96. Michael Chertoff's cousin Ben was brought into Popular Science to

write it. Isn't that a bit suspicious in the least?

[fooj]

131. These rat bastards are unbelievable.......

They fricking cover all angles, don't they? I hate them. I know that it screws up my positive energy but I just can't help it. I hate them with the intensity of 1000 suns!:grr:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

148. Yes, they are dear fooj.

It is so frigging incestuous when you connect those dots. Why of all people Chertoff's cousin? Right????? Coincidence...there are no coincidences and yes I love your 1000 firey suns!!!!!

[newsguyatl]

13. umm, u DID see the planes

actually FLY into the towers didn't u?


i mean, the bush cabal is good, but they're not THAT good.

[Rainscents]

26. Yes, I saw that and also AIRPLANE PARTS on the ground after

the crash! I saw the engine lying on the ground before FBI took it away. Media was showing this on TV!

[longship]

15. The airplane broke apart into little teeny pieces.

It's not made of steel. It's mostly empty space, and constructed with very light alloys of aluminum, etc., which is stiff, but brittle. Even when a pilot has control of an airplane and attempts to mitigate damage, an airplane crash utterly destroys an airplane.

Think!!! Do you really expect a 500 mph airliner to remain whole after colliding with the Pentagon? Do you really expect a 300 mph airliner diving into the ground to remain intact? Gees! We're talking a 2 billion joule collision here. The entire airplane is gonna get crushed.

[Rainscents]

20. I use to work with aircraft parts... Beams very heavy steel and the wings

engines are huge parts!

[longship]

38. NOOOO! Not steel!!

I worked at Boeing for years. The wing spars are box construction of alloy, just like the rest of the airplane. The backbone of the fuselage is constructed the same way out of the same material.

If you made these things out of steel, the damned thing would never get off the ground.

[Rainscents]

41. Most of structures are made out of Titanium and they don't melt away.

[longship]

49. No. Not titanium. Not steel.

From Jane's All the World's Aircraft:

Fail-safe structure. Conventional aluminium structure augmented by graphite ailerons, spoilers, elevators, rudder and floor panels; advanced aluminium alloy keel beam chords and wing skins; composites engine cowlings, wing/fuselage fairing and rear wing panels; CFRP landing gear doors; and aramid flaps and engine pylon fairings.
Subcontractors include Boeing Military Aircraft (wing fixed leading-edges); Northrop Grumman (wing centre-section and adjacent lower fuselage section; fuselage bulkheads); Vought Aircraft (horizontal tail); Canadair (rear fuselage); Alenia (wing control surfaces, flaps and leading-edge slats, wingtips, elevators, fin and rudder, nose radome); Fuji (wing/body fairings and main landing gear doors); Kawasaki (forward and centre fuselage; exit hatches; wing in-spar ribs); Mitsubishi (rear fuselage body panels and rear fuselage doors).

It's all aluminum and aluminum alloys. Not titanium. Not steel.

[Rainscents]

54. Hello??? I worked in gallies and the all the entry door way and the floor

beams surroundings are TITANIUM!!! I should know, I work with it! You cannot drill throu titanium, unless you use diamond drill bits, even at that, it's very hard!

[longship]

60. Read my post above.

The bulk of the airliner is aluminum and aluminum alloys with some composites thrown in for good measure. There may be some titanium used, but titanium has precisely the problems of which you describe.

I worked at Boeing during the 80's as an engineer. We didn't use titanium precisely because all of our tooling was geared for aluminum. To switch to something like Ti would have required a huge expense of doing a complete retooling of the entire plant.

Also, Ti has another problem. It's a fairly rare element. It's very, very expensive. The USA has no plentiful sources for it. I think Russia pretty much has a hold on the Ti market.

If there's any Ti on the 767 it's certainly not in the structural components, or the skin of the fuselage which, as Jane's says, are made of Al and Al alloy.

[barb162]

23. You make perfect sense

[dailykoff]

25. Except when they fly over NYC. Then they can take out 287 massive

steel columns before disintegrating. It's all explained in Popular Mechanics.

:crazy:

[longship]

45. Yes! A 2 billion joule collision would do that.

You are confusing the strength of the airplane with its mass. At about 150,000 Kg, a fuel laden 767 is a very heavy thing. Travelling at 400+ an inelastic collision (like flying into the ground or a building) is going to dissipate a huge amount of energy.

KE = 0.5 * m * v * v.

v = 400 mph = 179 m/s

KE = 0.5 * 150,000 Kg * 179 m/s * 179 m/s
KE = 2.4 billion joules.

That's a helluva lot of energy. Until that energy is dissipated, concrete, steel and anything else in the way is gonna get smacked but good.

Don't forget, the above calculation totally ignores the energy of the ignition of some 20,000 gallons of vaporized jet fuel.

[dailykoff]

47. You are confusing the Trade Center with Legoland.

I'm sorry, but your calculations are meaningless.

[longship]

50. Typical response from a delusional tin foiler.

I highly recommend that you educate yourself on how things work.

[The Straight Story]

61. Um....The ground is more compact/dense and strong than the WTC's were

Big difference between buildings and solid ground.

[longship]

75. Nope. Both were effectively inelastic collisions.

The dynamics of the plane hitting the ground and the one hitting the WTC are identical. The structural strength of an airliner is small compared to either ground or building. That's why the airliner in both cases crumbles into pieces.

BTW, I just checked out the info on Flight 93. It hit at an approx 45 degree angle and upside down at about 975 kph, which is 600 mph. This was a lot faster than I had thought.

The energy calculation for this collision:

Mass 757-200: ~85,000 kg. (empty = 58,000 kg, maximum long range TO weight = 116,000 kg)
Velocity = 975 kph = 270 m/s

KE = 0.5 * 85,000 * 270 * 270 Joules
KE ~ 3 billion joules.

That's a whole lot more than I had figured earlier.

[The Straight Story]

77. My point was (I think)

That there would be more debris from a collision with a building like WTC (mostly air) than with a field (mostly solid earth).

The engines, for example, would pass through mostly air and small density objects in the WTC than they would in PA and the Pentagon (close to ground) and so we would expect more debris in NY than in DC and PA.

[longship]

81. Basically correct, I think.

Your logic is flawless here.

But consider this. The interior of the WTC towers was cluttered with walls, furniture and all sorts of stuff which would disperse the debris and scatter it. It would also soak up some of the energy, but as you point out, not to the extent as colliding with the ground.

Look at the video of the South tower collision which hit across the corner of the bldg. You can see some debris coming out of the other side. An engine was found on the street near the tower. The North tower didn't do that because the plane hit directly and the debris doesn't get through the building's core which would have a lot more stuff in the way.

The engines are the heaviest large objects on an airplane. They are almost the only thing that is made of heavy steel. One large Flight 93 engine chunk was found 300 yards from the impact crater.

Finally, somebody on this thread is thinking clearly. Thanks for that. I was becoming concerned.

[The Straight Story]

85. If I wanted a conspiracy theory I would pin it on the dems

Seems like it would fit to me: Clinton was out and dems had been in power 8 years - our people were firmly in place in all branches of government. And what better way to embarass a new president, a republican one, than to have such a massive attack 9 months after he got in?

One can make up things to fit their ideals all day long. Clinton was all over the place on Iraq, Gore said saddam had to go, they knew of possibilities and had simluations of plane attacks on pentagon:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=77532

And so on.

How long does it take an administration to come up to speed? Awhile I am guessing (as it did Clinton when he came to office). The dems held off any major attack and then their people, after bush came into office, let it rip. Yeah - that's the ticket.

For the record - no, I don't think dems were in on it :)

[The Straight Story]

86. Reminds me of a car crash

55mph, hitting a pole. Debris is thrown out in all directions for some distance.

Now imagine that on a much larger scale.

[longship]

90. Let's see.

KE = 0.5 * m * v * v

m = 4000 lbs = 1588 Kg
v = 55 mph = 24.6 m/s

KE = 0.5 * 1588 * 24.6 * 24.6
KE = 480,000 Joules.

...and a steel car that looks like it's been into a crusher.

757 hitting the ground at 600 mph
KE = 3,000,000,000 Joules
6250 times the energy.

...and a disintegrated aluminum alloy airliner.

And the tin foil (mad) hatters keep screeching, "Where's the airplane?"

[danalytical]

110. What?

I thought Democrats were the ones who support science? Or are we now the party of "if it doesn't fit my preconcieved notion I will discard it?" Sounds kind of like the right wing christian community to me.

[Roland99]

19. How does it compare to that crash in the Florida Everglades a few yrs ago?

[Rainscents]

29. Don't know, never seen that one.

[longship]

83. I remember that one.

The physics is similar. The only difference is that water has different elastic properties than ground. Also, if the pilot was in control of the plane when it crashed he might attempt to make a soft landing. This could make a vast difference in the dispersal of the debris, etc.

[LuckyLib]

126. Longship, thanks for all of the interesting information on this.

While I'm not familiar with the physics, my hubby is a commercial pilot, instructor, and investigator, and he always described to me the physical properties of crashes that caused materials and bodies to "vaporize" -- they just disappear, from the sheer force of the impact. The speed of 93 was very fast as it hit the ground, faster than most crashes where pilots can gain some measure of control -- thus no bodies, no luggage, nothing. I had no trouble understanding why there weren't more large pieces at the crash site. Vaporized.

[Roland99]

134. Well, here's one picture of the crash site

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/vj592/2.shtml

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

92. On September 11th, Flight 93 was reported to have landed in Cleveland.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=flight+93+cleveland+airport+bomb&ei=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&fr=moz2

[longship]

115. Debunked.

That was another plane.

This is from the WCPO Channel 9 Blog concerning that report:

I thought it was time to set the record straight on a website error that's gotten out of hand.

I've been getting calls and e-mails for several years, all from folks who have seen my byline on a story (Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard) about Flight 93, the plane that crashed in a Pennsylvania field on September 11, 2001.

The story in question, an Associated Press bulletin, was posted on WCPO.com during the morning of September 11, 2001. The story stated that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. This was not true.

Once the AP issued a retraction a few minutes later, we removed the link.

There were two problems:

1)I only removed the link TO the story. We did not remove the story itself. This was my error probably due to the busy nature of the day - I was the only person updating the website until about noon that day, and things were crazier than they’d ever been.

2) The byline was incorrect. In my haste, I pasted the “Reported by: 9News Staff” byline from a previous story, but this was actually an Associated Press story.

Here's the link.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

125. And she, being a journalist didn't attribute the article to the AP?

Then forgetting to take the link down? The story came in and it could have been covered up. That is not debunking to me. It just leaves me with more questions.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WCPO/WCPO_TVinCincinnatiOhio.htm

Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard

Reported by: 9News Staff
Web produced by: Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.

United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight.

Continued to also include Flight 175 at above link

[longship]

128. Gawd, this is lame.

So, then tell me.
What happened to UAL93, then?
More importantly, what happened to the passengers on board UAL93?
What happened to them after they were safely deplaned in Cleveland?
If the plane landed safely in Cleveland why do the passenger's loved ones still mourn for them?

I know. I know. It's all a HUGH11111 conspiracy.

You talk about many questions, but your scenerio has so many fucking holes in it
and begs so damned many questions that only a lunatic would believe it.

People have lost the ability to think rationally.

[Jazz2006]

130. "People have lost the ability to think rationally"

It's the tinfoil blocking out their logical, analytical and critical thinking skills.

[longship]

136. Journalist? I don't think so.

Apparently, she is the Webmaster of their Web site. Not sure if she has journalist credentials, although she may.

What really bothers me is that what if UAL93 landed in Cleveland as is described in the retracted article.
That begs some questions, like what the fuck happened to the passengers who were seen to deplane from the
plane that landed? If it was UAL93, how did the HUGH11111 global conspiracy round them all up so that they
could make them disappear?

Excuse me sir, were you on UAL93? You'll have to come with me so that I can kill you.

It just doesn't make any sense at all.

And people wonder how Chimp got elected TWICE!!
People in this country are hopelessly stupid.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

141. It's interesting how when people question the planes being either empty

or in the case those who think the possibility of a missile and not a plane hit the pentagon ..one of the first question they ask are where are the passengers? If they can kill 3000 people at the WTC and well over 100,000 in Iraq based on lies..what's another couple of hundred people? There are any number of ways they could have disposed of them, just as heartlessly.

[longship]

142. There are some teeny issues here.

* There were many eye witnesses to both the Pentagon and the UAL93 crashes. They universally say that they were airliners.

* Is it reasonable that the most incompetent administration in history, which has yet to do anything correctly, have the competency to pull off such a complex and global conspiracy?

As the tin foil hat crowd likes to say, "Show me the pictures." I want to see definitive proof of the tin foil hat claims. No pictures? Fine, then they have no proof for their utterly ridiculous claims.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

149. Can you explain why there was only a 15' hole in the Pentagon before

the outer walls came down? Can you explain why an engine for "Flight 93" was discovered over 6 miles away? Big bounce? What is your rational thought with these?

To me, the official story is the wild conspiracy theory.

[longship]

155. Uhhhhh!

How about: A 757 fuselage is about 13 feet in diameter?

Fifteen feet seems about right to me.

[DanCa]

7. I am still waitting for the release of the Final Days of Terri Schiavo

May she rest in peace. I am sick of the rethugs exploiting tradgedy for their own gain.

[infogirl]

27. a florida dem dug her up ...

and announced the endorsement of Michael Schiovo for Florida Governor!
yes...US (D) Rep Jim Davis, Tampa. (patriot act...bankruptcy bill, free trade. lots of it) .....

[vickitulsa]

58. Me too. In fact, I get pissed when ANYONE exploits tragedy

for political ends ... so I get pissed a lot, I'm sad to say.

What really gets to me is that so many people just don't seem to recognize it when they're being manipulated by the telling -- in one media or another -- of tragic, intense true stories. Or fiction for that matter; but the true ones hit the hardest, and to most people, if it's "true," then there's no need for "suspension of disbelief" at all. They just BELIEVE whatever they read or see or hear. And I think they usually make do with hearing just one or two versions of an event, not being skeptical enough and not doing thorough research.

But then their opinions get set in stone, and they KNOW what really happened!

Now, we all understand how good filmmakers have become at depicting even the most sizable of dramatic events realistically. Their end products, especially if they have a lot of money to spend, are often so powerful they're overwhelming. Definitely a great way to make a point and have it stick.

There's an additional issue that disturbs me about this particular movie, though. I've been trying to put my finger on it ever since the trailers began running on TV. I won't be able to see United 93 until it's on cable -- but I haven't yet decided if I even want to see it at all, and here's why:

I've been concerned since about six months after 9/11/01 that way too much focus was being placed on the "heroic" actions of some during that crisis. I don't dispute that many did behave heroically, but I suspect a lot of genuine heroism went entirely unnoticed while perhaps some persons were praised as heroes when they were not.

Together with the fact that in the American lexicon the word "hero" has been overused in the extreme for many years now, these additional efforts to "hero-ize" some individuals (or even groups) seem to be making the whole concept nearly meaningless. As a lifelong student of human behavior, I have concluded over the last 40 years that hero worship really isn't very healthy for our species or our societies. Now, some recognition of courage "above and beyond" and the doing of good deeds doesn't bother me; but all my personal encounters with those who've been dubbed heroes reveal a definite reluctance and discomfort such people have with being praised, especially before a wide audience.

Many people like to call ALL of our troops heroes. Yet among my many veteran friends (mostly Nam vets), without fail these guys say the only heroes are the ones who didn't come home alive. Even that seems a bit odd to me, since a guy who saved his buddy in a harrowing combat situation and lost a limb in the effort seems more heroic than, say, a clerk at a firebase who never faced live fire in action but was taken out by a mortar round that made it into the base.

But at this point -- and I can think of dozens of similar civilian examples, it seems to just start getting a bit crazy, all this talk of heroes and who is and who isn't one. "Real" heroes seem to shun the spotlight, so why do we put them through that torture? People who eat up the praise and "glory" and even seek it out are immediately suspect to me, making me question their motives if not their actions.

Regarding the Flight 93 "heroes" (and I'm not saying the brave ones who prevented many more deaths are NOT heroes, okay?), I can't help wondering how hearing their story told so powerfully and their courage and actions portrayed so glowingly affects the families of the passengers in the other three airliners that were hijacked that same day!

:Sigh: (We need a smiley for that!) ... I realize that such a unique and moving story as that of Flight 93 simply "begs to be told" in a major film. It just disturbs me and worries me that many viewers are likely to have their common sense conclusions about this administration's criminal behavior reversed or ignored if their "patriotic" passions are whipped up by a movie like this one.

Exploitation of tragedy for the sake of political gain? Downright dishonorable and despicable!

[lostexpectation]

14. I don't think the film makers motives were to support the Bush regime...

Im quite sure in Paul Greengrass's film of the Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland by the C-IRA he did not detailed how the one of the cars used was let through a checkpoint because the driver was an known informer, doesn't mean the guy has sympathies with British government having also made a film about Bloody Sunday.

Im sure Olivers Stones movie won't deal with this point yet he can hardly be said to be a rightwinger or even a centrists...

[SeattleGirl]

31. How about letting me decide for myself?

Come on, Rain, most folks on this board can think for themselves. I am not sure I'm going to see the movie, not because I believe it is Bush propoganda, but because I know it is an emotional movie. A lot of people can watch a movie critically, can think about it, and come to their own conclusions.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but I've read a number of threads on this movie, written by folks who haven't even seen it, but who are convinced it's nothing but a GWBush production. Not wanting to see it, for whatever reason, is totally cool with me. There are some movies I've not really cared to see. But I'm just not going to make a judgement one way or another about this movie unless and until I see it.

Peace.

[Rainscents]

33. Yes, you're right... I'm just putting my .02.

I have no plan on seeing the movie way back when I first heard about movie being made.

[SeattleGirl]

36. As you absolutely have the right to do, Rain

:hi:

[Rainscents]

40. Thanks! Hello back at yea!

:hi: I guess, I don't trust what comes out of our governments mouth anymore after 6 years of pure lies. I use to sleep at the wheel, but sometimes, I wish I was still there for my own sanity.

[SeattleGirl]

42. I completely understand, Rain. I really do.

Any time a Bushbot -- or Bush -- opens their mouths, my immediate reaction is: LIAR!!! They could tell me the sky was blue on a sunny, cloudless day, and I'd think they were lying!

One thing to keep in mind about United 93 is that a lot of it was based on phone calls from the folks who were actually on the plane. I know it is not a 100% accurate depiction of what happened -- there's no way it could be, since everyone on that plane perished -- so I think there has to be some truth to the content of the movie. (Not trying to talk you in to seeing it. As I said, I still don't know if I'm going to see it either, at least not right now. I don't know if I could deal with it.)

But again, I understand why you don't trust anything from this Administration. I don't either.

[dailykoff]

39. The question is, why use DU to plug neo-con propaganda

which is what this movie is, no matter what production values it has or whose talent they bought?

[SeattleGirl]

44. Do you have evidence that that is what this movie is?

Just wondering.

[dailykoff]

46. Every scrap of evidence I've seen

contradicts the official 9/11 myth, and this movie is nothing but politically useful mythology, so I'd have to say yes.

[SeattleGirl]

56. Have you seen the movie?

No flaming intended here, dailykoff. As I told Rainscents, not wanting to see a movie for whatever reason is fine; there are movies I haven't wanted to see for various and sundry reasons. It's just that you seem to have made up your mind about what the movie is, without seeing it. That was why I asked.

Is what you say your opinion, or fact? I think it is opinion, which I will not argue with you on, but it comes across as a pronouncement. And I'm being kind of picky on this because when I read "pronouncements" that are actually opinions, I'm a little taken aback because I feel that people who do that are saying I should think as they do, and that if I don't, there's something wrong with me, which I don't think there is.

This may not be what you are saying, so fogive me if I'm jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.

Peace.

[dailykoff]

62. I know the premise. I've seen the promotional

materials. Who could avoid them? And yes, my opinion is that this is 100% trash.

Wouldn't it be nice just once to hold neo-cons responsible for their crimes instead of salivating every time they ring a bell?

:eyes:

[SeattleGirl]

66. Believe me, I don't respond to the bell

Well, maybe I do -- to immediately think liar, liar, liar whenever any of them opens their mouths.

And I agree -- holding the neo-cons responsible for their crimes would be nice. No, it would be fantastic! And I'll be dancing in the streets when the Bush Cabal has to turn over the keys to the White House (and I'll be there with the crowds storming the front doors of the WH if they refuse to leave!).

I just don't know that this movie is necessarily a neo-con production, though I do understand why a lot of people think it is. I'm still reserving judgement on it for the time being.

Thanks for your response. I really appreciate it! :hi:

[Rainscents]

52. Changing the subject...

Notice my screen name? I tought of it because of amount of rains we get here PNW! I still love the way rain smell! Silly me. ;-)

[SeattleGirl]

57. Wow! You live just up I-5 from me!

I really love the way spring and summer rains smell! But I have to say, I've been enjoying the sunny weather we've had this week!

[Rainscents]

63. OMG, we are close!

I been trying to find people who live close by to get together with once in a while... Of course, from DU, since most of us are progressive. I live in south Everett, very close to Lynnwood.

[SeattleGirl]

68. We had a meet-up in downtown Seattle in January.

I got to meet JulieRB, flamingyouth, AlienGirl, AmandaRuth, MiniMandaRuth, and some others. It was fabulous. We are talking about having a barbeque meetup this summer. You should come, if you can.

Also, I have to come up to Everett occasionally for my job. Maybe we could "do" lunch sometime when I'm up that way.

[Rainscents]

69. That would be great! Love to go to meet up and lets meet when

next time you are going to be in Everett area! I would love to spend time with my own kind of people! PM me when and I'll be there! THANK YOU! :hug: You deserve a big hug!

[SeattleGirl]

71. That would be great!

I will do that!!

And you deserve a hug too! :hug:

[danalytical]

112. Oliver Stone is a neo con?

The creator of JFK, The People vs Larry Flynt, Born on the 4th of July, and Platoon? Yeah, OK!

[jdelullo]

48. I know what happened on 9/11

I saw it happen live on TV, I really have no desire to see a movie about what people think might have happened. And with what has been said in the posts on here, I get the feeling this movie is the GOP's mouthpiece.

This movie is trying to convince people "Wow, I guess going to war was right." Too bad we'll have been involved in about 187561 wars since the one this movie is talking about.

[Mizmoon]

64. Maybe it will remind people

that the real terrorists are still out there while the Bushies waste our army and treasure on a snipe hunt.

[Rainscents]

70. You know, you gotta point! I didn't think about that one.

[Gabi Hayes]

72. well, duh! that's the point of all the tinfoilers posting! now....try

this chapeau on for size


in the invasion of Iraq, and its aftermath:

THE COMMISSION'S TREATMENT OF UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 93

Flight 93 presented the 9/11 Commission with a different task. In relation to the previous flights, the Commission's task was to explain why the US military did not intercept and shoot them down. With regard to Flight 93, the Commission had to convince us that the military did not shoot it down. It sought to do this not by refuting the evidence, which is considerable, that the airliner was shot down, but by simply constructing a new story intended to show that the US military could not have shot down Flight 93.



The Military's Ignorance of the Hijacking

The Commission makes two major claims about Flight 93. The first one is that: "By the time the military learned about the flight, it had crashed" (229). The centrality of this claim is shown by the fact that it is repeated, almost mantra-like, throughout the Commission's chapter.20



Incredible FAA Incompetence

The main support for this claim is provided by yet another tale of amazing incompetence by FAA officials. At 9:28, we are told, the traffic controller in Cleveland heard "sounds of possible screaming" and noticed that Flight 93 had descended 700 feet, but he did nothing. Four minutes later, he heard a voice saying: "We have a bomb on board." This controller, not being completely brain dead, finally notified his supervisor, who in turn notified FAA headquarters. Later, however, when Cleveland asked Herndon whether the military had been called, the Commission claims, Herndon "told Cleveland that FAA personnel well above them in the chain of command had to make the decision to seek military assistance and were working on the issue" (227). To accept this account, we must believe that, on a day on which there had already been attacks by hijacked airliners, officials at FAA headquarters had to debate whether a hijacked airliner with a bomb on board was important enough to disturb the military. And we must believe that they were still debating this question 13 minutes later, when, we are told, the following conversation between Herndon and FAA headquarters occurred:


Command Center: Uh, do we want to think, uh, about scrambling aircraft?
FAA Headquarters: Oh, God, I don't know.
Command Center: Uh, that's a decision somebody's gonna have to make probably in the next ten minutes. (228)

But obviously the decision was that the military should not be disturbed, because 14 minutes later, at 10:03, when Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, we are told, "no one from FAA headquarters requested military assistance regarding United 93" (229). We are expected to believe, in other words, that FAA officials acted like complete idiots.



Worthless Teleconferences

In any case, besides arguing, by means of this tale of incredible incompetence, that the FAA never formally notified the military about Flight 93, the Commission argued that there was also no informal notification during any teleconference. In this case, not being able to argue that the teleconferences began too late, the Commission argued that they were worthless. Its summary statement said: "The FAA, the White House, and the Defense Department each initiated a multiagency teleconference before 9:30. none of these teleconferences . . . included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department" (211).

Let us begin with the teleconference initiated by the National Military Command Center. Why was it worthless for transmitting information from the FAA to the military? Because, we are told, Pentagon operators were unable to get the FAA on the line. This is a very implausible claim, especially since, we are told, the operators were able to reach everyone else (230-31). Also, as we saw earlier, Laura Brown of the FAA seemed to have independent knowledge about when this teleconference started---which suggests that the FAA was reached.

Why was the FAA-initiated teleconference equally worthless? The problem here, the Commission claimed, was that the officer at the NMCC said that "the information was of little value" so he did not pay attention (234).

However, even if we could believe that no one at the Pentagon was monitoring the call, Laura Brown's memo had said that in addition to the phone bridge set up by the FAA with the Pentagon, the "Air Force liaison to the FAA . . . established contact with NORAD on a separate line." So even if no one at the Pentagon was paying attention, the military still would have received the information. Her memo said, moreover, that "he FAA shared real-time information . . . about . . . all the flights of interest" (183), and the Commission itself agrees that by 9:34, FAA headquarters knew about the hijacking of Flight 93, so it was a "flight of interest." The Commission's claim is, therefore, flatly contradicted by this memo, which was read into the Commission's record.

What about the White House videoconference, which was run by Richard Clarke? The Commissioners say: "We do not know who from Defense participated" (210). But this claim is completely unbelievable. One problem is that it contradicts the Commission's assurance that "the right people" were not involved in this conference: How could they know this if they did not know who was involved? The main problem, however, is simply that the claim is absurd. Surely any number of people at the Pentagon could have told the Commissioners who participated in Clarke's videoconference.

Simpler yet, they could have looked at Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, which became a national best seller during the Commission's hearings. It clearly states that the participants from the Pentagon were Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, Acting Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (210-12).21 It also reports that the FAA was represented by its top official, Jane Garvey. And if these were not "the right people," who would have been?

The Commission's attempt to prove that the military could not have learned about Flight 93 from this videoconference is even more explicitly contradicted by Clarke, who reports that at about 9:35, Jane Garvey reported on a number of "potential hijacks," which included "United 93 over Pennsylvania" (232). Therefore, more than 25 minutes before Flight 93 crashed, according to Clarke, both Myers and Rumsfeld heard from the head of the FAA that Flight 93 was considered a potential hijack.

The Commission's tales about FAA incompetence and worthless teleconferences are, therefore, directly contradicted by Laura Brown's memo and Richard Clarke's book. Their combined testimony implies that the Commission's main claim--that "by the time the military learned about the flight, it had crashed"--is a bald-faced lie.



Cheney's Arrival at the Shelter Conference Room

To recall where we are: The Commission's first major claim is that the US military could not have shot down Flight 93 because it did not know about the hijacking of this flight until after it crashed at 10:03. The Commission's second main point, to which we now turn, is that the authorization to shoot planes down was not issued until several minutes after 10:03.

In support of this point, the Commission claims that Vice President Cheney, who was known to have issued the shoot-down authorization from the shelter conference room under the White House, did not get down there until about almost 10:00, "perhaps at 9:58" (241). This claim, however, is doubly problematic.

One problem is that this claim is not supported by any documentation. The Commission says that the Secret Service ordered Cheney to go downstairs "just before 9:36"; that Cheney entered the underground corridor at 9:37; that he then, instead of going straight to the shelter conference room at the other end of the corridor, spent some 20 minutes calling the president and watching television coverage of the aftermath of the strike on the Pentagon (241). This timeline is said to be based on Secret Service alarm data showing that the Vice President entered the underground corridor at 9:37. However, The 9/11 Commission Report then says that this "alarm data . . . is no longer retrievable" (244). We must, therefore, simply take the Commission's claim on faith.

And this is very difficult, since the Commission's claim is contradicted by every prior report. A White House photographer, who was an eyewitness, and various newspapers, including the New York Times, said that Cheney went below shortly after 9:00. Richard Clarke's account suggests that Cheney went below before 9:15 (242). Even Cheney himself, speaking on "Meet the Press" five days after 9/11, indicated that he was taken downstairs at about that time (243). The Commission, showing its usual disdain for evidence that contradicts its story, makes no mention of any of these reports.

The most dramatic contradiction of the Commission's timeline was provided by Norman Mineta. In open testimony to the Commission itself, he said, as we saw earlier, that when he got to the underground shelter at 9:20, Cheney was already there and fully in charge. The Commission, insisting that Cheney did not get there until almost 10:00, simply omitted any mention of this testimony in its Final Report. But Mineta's testimony is still available for anyone to read.22

We can say with a very high level of confidence, therefore, that the Commission's account is a lie.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051205150219651

I'm pretty sure 911 truth.org won't mind my overstepping copyright bounds on this

[longship]

87. These are the real scandals of 9/11

Not disappearing airliners.
Not invisible missiles.
Not non-existent controlled demolitions.
Nor any more tin foil hat made-up rubbish.

The more these tin foil hat loonies get a voice, the less the real issues will get a hearing. Conspiracy theory crap hurts our case.

[DemInDistress]

132. non existent "controlled demolitions" (rotf)

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/ besides that scroll down to this link Video: 911.wtc.2.demolition.east.5.enl.slow.2.wmv

what does your skeptical eyeballs see?

[Jazz2006]

135. Still non-existent despite your "rofl".

Let's see.

Longship posts hypotheses that s/he backs up with facts and science, methodically explaining those views every step of the way. Those posts stand as they are and, so far as I've seen, nobody has seriously challenged them, let alone proven them wrong.

In contrast, DemInDistress posts hypotheses that he backs up with nothing but his own wilfully blind assertions and some conspiracy theorist sites that rely upon nothing but similarly wilfully blind assertions with no facts or science to back them up, which have been challenged and proven wrong repeatedly. If one were to countenance his views, it can only be done with a pound of salt. Or roughly 500 grams of salt if you're metrically inclined.


Example: on these very threads, DemInDistress insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the punchout hole in C-Ring at the Pentagon was the entrance hole where the airplane struck the building and DemInDistress uses that nonsense to postulate and expand upon what he views as a massive conspiracy theory. Even when it is pointed out repeatedly that the photo is not of the entrance hole, DemInDistress insists that it was.

Even when it is pointed out by DemInDistress' fellow conspiracy theorists that it is not the entrance hole, he persists in insisting that it was.

Eventually, after DemInDistress receives PMs from other tinhatters pointing out how wrong he is on this particular point, and long past the time that anyone with half a brain would have said that the best course of action would be for DemInDistress to simply acknowledge the error and move on, DemInDistress still doesn't do so. He just plods along pretending that he was right all along, ignores the facts, ignores the evidence, and never ever acknowledges that he was wrong.

He really should have thanked me for pointing out to him repeatedly how wrong he was on that punch out photo which he insisted, as late as a week ago, was the entrance hole, and thereby saving him from embarrassing himself on whatever cable show he's apparently going to be on.

As I said later, I could have left it alone and let him embarrass himself... now I wish I had.

Bottom line: Longship v. DemInDistress?

Any rational person will choose Longship.

[DemInDistress]

165. I see you need a "mouthpiece" or do you just avoid the truth?

didn't check out the posted videos? why?

[rman]

76. "United 93" vs "Flight 93"

United 93 (Universal Pictures)
www.apple.com/trailers/universal/united93/
www.flight93.net (note the confusing URL)
www.united93movie.com

Many people are incorrectly refering to this one as "Flight 93".

--

Here's the real "Flight 93":

Flight 93 (A&E)
www.aetv.com/flight_93/f93_preview.jsp
www.loosechange911.com/flight93.mov

[Rainscents]

79. Thank you for the last two video!

It helped me alot about real truth!

[Swamp Rat]

88. so many distractions

[SeattleGirl]

89. Hey, Swamp Rat

How are you? Are things any better for you, or is it still tough going for you? :hug:

[Swamp Rat]

116. Both

thanks for asking :hug:

Some things are bertter - I am at least home. But, no work has been done on my house and I must sleep on a moldy wooden floor at the present with gaping, 2ft wide holes in the ceiling. I can't get any contractors to work on it. None are reliable, especially the ones from Texas with their Mexican slaves. They have been a nuissance here in New Orleans on so many levels.

[electron_blue]

95. Longship is right - thanks for the physics primer

Great explanation of the physics behind the 93 crash, and other projectile impacts of high energy.

It's too bad that somewhere along the line that many people in the U.S. were misled into thinking that just because they don't understand science (like physics), that it's all speculation, smoke and mirrors.

[mirandapriestly]

98. Oh brother...

find one other plane crash where there is no wreckage , no bodies (oh except for the "terrorist's" headband in perfect condition). You can't. He doesn't understand physics, anybody can cut and paste a few phrases off the internet and pretend they know what they are talking about. It doesn't happen.

[Beam Me Up]

101. Physics has to account for this:

A tin foot hole w/ basically no wreckage; singed trees but not the grass immediately adjacent; an explosion plume that looks more like an ordinance blast (little smoke) rather than an impact fireball (lots of flame and thick black smoke); and a red bandana, apparently not even scorched:









True, we wouldn't expect MUCH of the plane to be left, but SOME would be expected: luggage, bodies, engines, wings, fuselage -- this is not the first time a jet liner has crashed into the ground at full speed.

But what we have is a red bandana that miraculously escaped the apparent 'evaporation' of everything else.

Physics has to explain this, too.

That, or common sense.

[longship]

103. The dynamics of the crash

The reason the crash site looks like that is because the plane hit at 600 mph. The momentum at that velocity would carry the plane into the bottom of the crater. There wouldn't be much to find. The wings would have sheared off, folding back as they too were carried forward into the crater. Likewise the vertical stabilizer. All the airliner, the luggage, the people, and everything else would eventually come to a stop as the whole conglomeration would be compacted into a large glob at the crater's center. There would be no body recovery because there would be no bodies to recover.

At 600 mph there would be few things that would survive. However, that does *NOT* say that nothing would survive. Something like a red bandana could be cast away by the shock wave and remain intact. It's cloth, so it's not going to break. In the chaos of the collision many strange things can happen.

What are you trying to say here? Are you really going to use the existence of a single piece of cloth to draw a conclusion about a 600 mph airliner crash?

[Maven]

106. Oh, c'mon

"Cast away by the shock wave?"

Who's contriving a theory around a story now?

[longship]

111. Again, look at the dynamics.

How much time between when the airliner's nose first touches the ground until all motion stops? At 600 mph isn't it a second or two at most? That means that 3 billion joules of energy is dissipated in that short period of time. There would be a shock wave from such an event which would carry lighter debris away from the crater.

Do you think I'm making this up? I've been a physicist, engineer, and mathematics teacher for over three decades. I have years of experience in the aircraft industry. My purpose in making these posts is to help educate people so that they do not draw incorrect conclusions from the facts. That seems to be a hopeless task given the appalling ignorance in these threads.

The only master I serve is the truth. The only path to truth is paved with facts, not a bunch of made-up shit. Much of the tin foil hat stuff is nothing more than that.


Peace.

[simonm]

117. Pictures speak louder than words

Do you have any pictures from other crashes that can support your assertions? I'm interested in examples of other 757 confetti crash scenes.

[longship]

121. Another typical tin foil hat response

I am not making assertions, I'm stating facts and the consequences of those facts.

It is simple to relate what happened to the plane and its contents in the collision with the ground and is straightforward to predict what the scene should look like after such a collision. The fact that the scene is precisely what one would expect from such an event leads me to accept the conclusion that an airliner crashed.

The 757-200 struck the ground inverted and at an approximate 45 degree angle. It's speed was on the order of 600 mph when it hit.

It would take approximately one second for the plane to come to rest. During that time, the entire length of the airplane and all its contents would be smashed into a ball of intertwined wreckage which would bury itself in the ground. The plane, and its entire contents (including the people) would be crushed into small pieces as the momentum is retarded by the ground. There would be no airplane left, no bodies left. The wings would shear off and collapse. Large, heavy parts, like in the engines might survive, but only heavily damaged.

The approximately 3 billion joules of kinetic energy would be dissipated in that one second. This would generate a considerable shock wave which would cast off debris in all directions. The supersonic debris would include dirt and stones from the ground as well as pieces of wreckage resulting in a symmetric crater centered at the impact point. The conversion of kinetic energy would result in signficant heat generation which would ignite fuel and anything else flammable that wasn't cast off by the shock wave. Anybody standing in the vicinity of the crash would be instantly killed by the combination of shock wave and high velocity debris it carried with it.

The size of the crater and the size of the debris field would be directly proportional to the energy of the impact. This, in turn, is determined nearly solely by the mass of the airplane and its velocity. The resiliency of the ground would be a secondary consideration. For analysis purposes it's simply an inelastic collision.

The extremely chaotic nature of the event would prohibit any conclusions from the location of specific small pieces of debris. E.G., an unsinged red scarf would draw no note except for the inevitable personal interest. A large jet engine part would be noted as it might help the investigators determine how the airplane broke up and whether the break-up was prior to, or after impact. Likewise if there are multiple debris fields, that could indicate at least partial break up prior to impact.

If there are indications of break-up prior to impact, the investigators would likely test debris for remnants of explosives to determine the cause. Much can be determined by visual inspection, but if there are suspicions there are chemical tests. However, airliner airframes are not engineered for high speed manuvering (especially at 600 mph). Engines and wings can come off and the airframe can break by aerodynamic stress alone. So multiple debris fields do not in and of themselves imply explosion.

Witnesses (and in this case, there were several) would be interviewed and a concensus of events would be built from these first hand accounts. These accounts are only useful in their collective value. Individuals make mistakes, use different idioms to describe events, and might not have an ideal view of the event. All these things would be considered before any conclusion can be developed from first person accounts. A map of witnesses would be plotted so that the information in their accounts can be correlated with their viewpoint.

None of these things are done by the tin foil hat crowd. That's why the tin foil hatters nearly always come to incorrect conclusions. They cherry pick witness accounts and other data, they promote insignificant information to unwarranted prominence while simultaneously ignoring crucial data, and they get the science behind the event wrong in substantive ways.

[simonm]

137. I'll accept your answer as a "NO"

I'm not asking for much. You can pick any crash scene throughout human history with a plane in comparable size and makeup. My mind is open to any possibility.

There is nothing tinfoilish about requesting historical physical evidence to back up your theories. This task should be easy for you. Why do you have a problem with it?

[longship]

157. No problem in principle.

Here is the NTSB report of a similar accident:

PDF file alert. Right click and "Save as..."
US Air 427

Nota bene: This was a 737 which impacted at 300 mph, approx half that of UAL 93. The largest piece found in the US Air 427 was a person sized piece from the tail section. The rest of the plane was small pieces. The energy dissipated in the UAL 93 crash would have on the order of 10 times more as a 757-200 is considerably larger and UAL 93 was going twice as fast.

More generally...

I have a problem with people who make pronouncements about 9/11 events that entail scientific and engineering principles without having the first basic understanding of those principles.

I have a *huge* problem with people who spew false information in spite of the fact that the correct information is available to anybody who takes the trouble to look for themselves.

For instance, the tin foil hat crowd are always screeching that the hole in the Pentagon was too small to be made by a 757-200. Of course, they are completely wrong. But they don't bother looking up the dimensions of a 757-200 fuselage, which is 13' 2" tall and 12' 4" wide. The hole in the Pentagon was over 15 feet in diameter which is just what one would expect from a very high speed 757-200 collision.

Another example, is the tin foil hatter screeching about the lack of video of the Pentagon collision when there were hundreds of people driving to work on the three major thoroghfares adjoining the Pentagon who were direct eyewitnesses to the plane and/or the actual collision. The tin foil mad hatters respond that all these people are lying, which is one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever heard. Hell, one of the eyewitnesses was Paul Begala!!

It goes on and on and on. What's the tin foil hat agenda that they do this stuff?
It's sleazy bullshit.

UAL 93 was also a 757-200. It augered in nose first, upside down and a 45 degree angle at ~600 mph. The tin foilers screech, "Where is the airplane?" and cite many other accidents where large pieces of fuselage were recovered. Of course, these other accidents were *not* like the UAL 93 accident at all. In none of the tin foil hatter citations was the plane deliberately flown directly into the ground at 600 mph. So their comparisons are totally non-sequitors. Hell, most of their examples were crashes where the plane broke up in the air which is clearly *not* the case with UAL 93 which was witnessed flying into the ground essentially intact. (Of course, to the tin foilers, these eyewitnesses are also lying, which is the only way that they can dismiss the eyewitness accounts.)

I'm not sure of the crater size. I've heard 20-30 feet in diameter. That's pretty much in line with what one would expect from a 757-200 fuselage. Remember, the damned thing was going about 600 when it hit. How many people have seen a steel automobile after a 55 mph collision? Not much left of it, is there? The 757-200 airframe is 100% aluminum and aluminum alloy!! Christ! How much airplane do they want to survive? It would disintegrate.

In addition to the eyewitnesses, all the first responders to the UAL 93 crash were from the two volunteer fire departments in the immediate area who began arriving within 15 minutes after the crash. All told, 55 people worked thousands of hours from the two deparments. These people were not government shills, but people just like you and me who unselfishly give their time for gratis to help out in emergencies. Beyond the eyewitness accounts, the reports of these volunteers are the most compelling. They reported pieces of fuselage and jet fuel all over the field intermingled with personal belongings. Of course, the tin foilers would have these people as liars and shills, also. Isn't it more likely that the tin foil hatters are deluded?

When one looks at *all* the evidence, one concludes that UAL 93 crashed in that field. It was essentially intact when it hit. It was probably *not* shot down.

These things won't stop the tin foil mad hatter screeching, though.
Ridiculous.

[ExCiber]

140. Here's a similar crash

I normally avoid these type of discussion but you may want to look for USAit Flt. 427 which crashed near Pittsburgh in 1994.

There's quite a few pictures showing a hole in the grouns and small parts.

"ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1994, USAir Flight 427 crashed to the ground, killing 132 people. The Boeing 737 jet was approaching Pittsburgh under perfect weather conditions when it rolled over 180 degrees and went into an uncontrollable corkscrew dive. It smashed into the earth nose first with such force that the aircraft disintegrated into millions of small pieces."

"Rescuers from Hopewell Township have described the scene as "gruesome" with "body parts hanging from the trees". The largest piece of the plane, that is left intact, is believed to be the tail and it is described as being a piece of slivered metal about the size of a person. Bits of baggage, shredded parts of the plane, and severed limbs are reportedly strewn over a large area. Rescuers are believed to be hampered by darkness and the rugged terrain in the area of the crash.
http://www.avweb.com/news/news/183029-1.html


" Unconfirmed reports have suggested that the plane had exploded prior to impacting the ground, which would account for the debris being spread over a very wide area. Other eyewitnesses have said that it "dove into the ground under full power". Contradictory reports continue to be received as additional witnesses are interviewed. The FAA has ordered the scene sealed, and it is being surrounded by local and state police officials. CBS News is reporting that the FBI has been called in to the case because of the mysterious circumstances under which the plane crashed. At least one unconfirmed report said that the possibility of sabotage exists and that the explosion may have been altitude detonated. "
http://www.emergency.com/ft427crs.htm

Picture here - http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1997/beat-reporting/works/737-3/

http://www.avweb.com/news/news/183029-1.html

Granted it was only a 737 and only hit at about 300 MPH.

[Beam Me Up]

145. pix?

This barely qualifies. There is debris here. Not certain but it looks like one engine (dark, cone shape near center, slightly to the left and above center). I wish there were more photos from different angles and closer up so we could see what is actually there. Difficult to get a sense of scale, too. Granted, there is little left, but I would hardly call this 'confetti'. What is in the woods or just beyond the picture edge at the bottom?

[Thorandmjolnir]

119. 600 mph?

Ealier you said 300 mph.

[longship]

123. Until I looked it up.

The 300 mph was a scientific wild ass guess. I couldn't imagine the plane flying that fast into the ground. I failed to account for the fact that the highjackers might very well push the engines to TRT to maximize terror and damage. But when I checked info on the crash they indicated 975 kph. Kind of shocked me. That would be fast enough for things to start falling off the airframe during any manuevers. I also got more accurate info on the 757-200's mass, so I revised that value, too. My original estimate of ~1 billion joules turned out to be too small. It's more like 3 billion.

An honest mistake. Either way, there would be no airplane left, let alone bodies.

[mirandapriestly]

166. Exactly. If you are going to try to prove parts

of what occurred with "physics" then yo have to be able to prove everything. Like, why was that hole the size it was?

[LARED]

97. Interesting links on the home page of the video

Breaking Video News
Weather Control
911 Conspiracy
Important News
New World Order
Mind Control
Skull And Bones
Bohemian Grove
Bilderberg

I can assume being credible is not important when viewing this video

[mirandapriestly]

100. The 911 Commission was credible? nt

[LARED]

102. They fulfilled their purpose

Get the basic facts, Blame anyone except themselves and the present and past administrations of the failure of our government to protect us on 9/11. Which of course has nothing to do with the credibility of the video producers.

[tomreedtoon]

108. It was Space Aliens, I tells ya! Only the Enquirer has the TRUTH!!!!

Calling "United 93" a Republican propaganda piece...or are you calling it an International Jewish Conspiracy propaganda piece?...is an especially stinky load of doo-doo.

Ever since the Kennedy assassination (which was NOT financed by the Illuminati, by the way) there have been four common factors about conspiracy nuts of every stripe.

1) They will not listen to scientific evidence, no matter how reasoned (especially if it is primarily reasoned) if it denies their vision of a vast conspiracy.

2) They always believe these conspiracies are incredibly, amazingly competent up to the point where they cause the assassination or catastrophe, but fall apart like a dorm full of bong-sucking dopers immediately afterwards.

3) None of them want to prosecute the people the conspiracy nuts want to blame for the conspiracy. Far from it. Having discovered through their incredible intelligence the secret of the conspiracy, and having proved themselves intellectually superior to the conspirators, they believe they now deserve to join and RUN the conspiracy. It's all about their own stinking egos.

4) Only rarely do they show any real concern for the victims of the conspiracy. I have never heard a Kennedy conspiracy nut claiming to be a Democrat, or caring very much about JFK or his policies. It might even be amusing to sit one down and ask pointed questions to see if they know anything about Kennedy. In the same way, I haven't heard any of this current crop commiserate about any of the victims of 9/11. Why should they? The victims are just objects to the conspiracy nuts's goals; proving how smart they are.

[Thorandmjolnir]

118. The debunkers are trying too hard

Look at what Longship says: In one instance its 300 mph hitting the ground. Then it is 600 mph. Then he says the impact crushed everything, using fancy calculations and formulas. Then, he claims the engine, which was found far away, had "bounced" of the ground when it impacted. Right, the heaviest part of the plane, "bounces" while all the light weight stuff (according to Longship) disappears into the hole.

Then he says the debris field can be explained because the plane broke up as it descended, but yet he leaves out that fact when he calculates the impact.

I don't know what happened that day. What I find interesting is, that the only government investigation into that day is so full of holes and rarely cited, that something is not right.

I find it odd, that people that question the official version here are called crazy and tinfoil hat people, while the 911 commission, whose theories are full of holes, are not questioned, or at least never doubted by the debunkers.

Some of the debunkers just try to hard, like they have a personal stake in this, instead of finding out what happened.

[kdpeters]

120. You say you question the official version, but

when provided with plausible explanations to at least some of your questions, you write it off as "fancy calculations and formulas". Seems to me the only answers you really want are those that agree with the conclusions you've already reached.

I'm just speculating here, but might that be the reason some people get tagged with the tinfoil hat label? Something to think about.

[mirandapriestly]

127. The point was the Longship contradicted himself

He made a point using "fancy calculations and formulas", then he contradicted that very point. So, how valid could his fancy calculation & formulas be? I think it's an excellent observation and very true. I have no idea how you come to your conclusion after reading the post you are referring to.

[kdpeters]

139. It's not clear to me where longship contradicted himself

Can you be more specific as to which argument you are referring?

The 300mph vs 600mph was clearly explained as was the possibility of a debris field occurring in the same incident where most of the material disintegrated. I don't see where longship ever actually professed to know exactly how all the evidence fits together, but he did provide plausible scenarios in which it could happen. The questions raised by those who would have us believe the conspiracy theories base their doubt on the premise that could not happen. Well, it's quite clear it CAN happen, and the most likely explanation is that it DID happen.

[mirandapriestly]

143. Give me an example of when it's ever happened before.nt

[Beam Me Up]

146. MP: Look at post 140 and 145 above. What do you think?

What are your impressions from that one image?

I don't deny that planes that hit the earth going that fast get torn to shreds but one does expect things like ENGINES which way TONS and are made of some of the strongest metals known to at least survive. But, no, apparently not at the Flight 93 crash site.

Physics. How much energy would it take to vaporize six tons of steel and titanium? -- oh, and leave a red handkerchief in tact. :hi:

[mirandapriestly]

150. Exactly

and those pictures show a lot of debris whether it is in "small pieces" or not. There are many more plane crash photos on the internet that were caused under similar speed and physical circumstance (physically). None of them are holes with no debris, none of them. Most of them have entire parts of the & "gruesome body parts". Those pictures support the Flight 92 was an anomaly point of view IMO.

[Jazz2006]

153. "There are many more plane crash photos on the internet that were..."

"There are many more plane crash photos on the internet that were caused under similar speed and physical circumstance (physically). None of them are holes with no debris, none of them."

Really?

How many other plane crashes at similar speed and in similar physical circumstances have there been?

Care to post, say, a dozen of the "many" you allude to?

How about half a dozen?

[mirandapriestly]

151. If you are going to take the "scientific proof" route

You need to be very specific about velocity, mass, & other variables or it doesn't mean anything. IOW, he says at some point that a high velocity object when impacted with the earth is going to smash into tiny, tiny pieces. Well, at what velocity, exactly 100? 300?. How small exactly would the pieces be? And is this true of any size? Because if it is, then why are there examples of planes under similar circumstances which are practically still intact? Because they were smaller? slower? Maybe , but if you can't prove that then the argument is without merit. Which leaves us with common sense and common sense tells me that there would be some plane parts & body parts left in the area of a plane crash because that is what I have seen before. Longship presents a possibility, but it would be yet another thing that happened on 911 that has never happened before with people trying to "prove" it with vague physics.

[Jazz2006]

154. In other words, because you don't understand the science that is

presented to you, you dismiss it out of hand and assert that "common sense tells me" something that is wholly unsupported by anything except your gut - you sound just like Bush.

Stephen Colbert would have a lot of fun with your posts.

[mirandapriestly]

156. It's supported by a lot more than my "gut"

and if you had ever read anything about it you would know that.

[Jazz2006]

158. Nah, you're just doing your usual. It's beyond boring and ....

you sound just like GWB.

Sad, that.

I base that on your actual posts, which never seem to amount to anything but your personal "feeling" about something... just like GWB. Never any facts, never any personal experience, never any science, just your "felling" (your misspelling intended). Just like GWB.

Oh, and about those photos of the many similar crashes that you allege.... just a half dozen will do.... hello? hello?

[mirandapriestly]

160. Whoever responded to my last post

you are on "ignore" and I can't read your post.

[Jazz2006]

162. ROTFLMAO - too lame for words, there, miranda.

You read it loud and clear... you just didn't like it since it required you to actually cough up facts.

Nice try, though.

Had you not been able to read it, you couldn't have responded to it, after all.

Jesus, I always suspected that you were rather silly, inept and lame, but I didn't actually think you'd prove me right so succinctly. Thanks.

[Jazz2006]

129. Actually, on another thread,

longship explained his/her first estimate of 300 mph and how he arrived at the 600 mph figure.

It wasn't a contradiction. It was an estimate that s/he subsequently checked into and revised based on the evidence that s/he found.

S/he makes very valid points, based on facts and supported by evidence and science. And s/he clearly has a WHOLE lot of patience in continuing to respond to those who refuse to remove the tin foil hats even for a moment.

[politrix]

133. This Is Like That Movie Stalin Made How He Saved USSR

HE beat Hitler and it was HIS strategic military genius that saved the Soviets. The truth is that he blundered and blundered and stumbled thru that war and only held out because he had so many bodies to thru at the problem - like us in Iraq.

It's like everything they play on the Hitler, uh, History Channel - Pure lies and obviously so.

The same way some movies can make Reagan seem like he was anything other than a fascist and stupid criminal leader. Just a feel-ghood propagandist piece of trash.

It's a barometer to see WHO gets their information from FOX and CNN. So, in this thread, we can see WHO...

Does anybody know the name of that Stalin movie, by the way?

[mirandapriestly]

152. No, but I do think this is propaganda.

They want to stop discussion of 911 and turn it into a myth or legend, hopefully a tale of heroism. The film maker had worked with British intelligence in the past which I think is interesting because I noticed most of his movies deal with these sort of historical stories.

[Jazz2006]

159. The sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling....

No different than "it's propaganda", "it's propaganda", "it's propaganda" if you haven't even seen the movie that you purport to be casting aspersions on.

What a boring little conspiracy theorist you're proving to be.

And about those photos of the many similar plane crashes that you were talking about above... just a half dozen will do.

[mirandapriestly]

161. Don't they tell you when you are on "ignore"?nt

[Jazz2006]

163. Silly girl. If you really had me on ignore, you would not have responded

since you claim not to have seen the very posts to which you just responded (and which you instigated in the first place).

Jesus. Do you really think that everyone (anyone?) else here is as incompetent and stupid about figuring out the posts work as you are suddenly pretending to be?

Admittedly, I'm still relatively new and it takes some doing to figure out how things work, but you've been around for a while - as you like to remind others at every opportunity - and suddenly you're pretending that you don't know how posts work so that you can avoid anwering the question.

How pathetic.

Totally, utterly pathetic.

(But I have to admit that I get a kick out of seeing you resort to such a pathetic stance - hee hee)

[Beam Me Up]

164. FYI: No, they don't.

I really think the "ignore" option should be a two-way street. In other words, if I put someone on ignore, then I should automatically be added to their ignore list. Apparently, however, that isn't how it works.

[mirandapriestly]

168. well, I feel like I'm being stalked. nt