Why Flight 93?

[leftysergeant]

The explosion of the jet fuel would have been relatively low-powered, compared to an ANFO charge. And, being uncontained, not great pressure would have built up. It would not have appreciably effected the crater, since it was above the surface. There would have been relatively little give to the soil. THe craters that one would associate with an artillery round or bomb dropped from an aircraft would actually penetrate the soil and go off underground, even if only a few inches under, and would be a much more concentrated blast.


Most of the lighter debris would have been airborn by other means at the time of the deflagration of the fuel, and would simply have been wafted to a higher elevation by the air raising with the fireball. Note in the picture of the smoke cloud, the tail seems to drift in at least two different directions because the wind is a little bit layered, blowing in different directions at different altitudes. It was a relatively calm day, so the difference is not too pronounced.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Why do you say the explosion sent debris miles away? Do you have any evidence for this?

Do you think pieces of heavier debris, after separating on impact at 500 knots, would need an addittional explosion to propel them a mile and a half away?

Do you think lighter debris, such as was found at greater distances, could be propelled for more than a mile by an explosion?

All you are proving is that if you can sneak in a bad assumption ("the explosion... sent debris miles away"), it is indeed possible to create apparent confusion where none exists. Big deal.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Myriad, see that is my problem. People like to morph data to fit whatever they need it to fit.
The impact caused X amount of debris to come off, but the plane went into soft ground to halt the fuel from getting all over the impact site.
That is why there was no fire around it.
So, debris shoot through the soft ground, but not much fuel does, and the fuel that did come out did not ignite from the 'fireball' that followed impact that when you see pictures off looks nothing like jet fuel explosion.
No black smoke. The mushroom cloud looks weak.
And unlike Gravy, I have a point to it all. I do not understand the impact dynamics, the explosion, the mass of debris but lack of fuel and fire, the planes wind reading, the alarms that should have sounded by did not, etc, etc.
All I am trying to do is get a handle on the data.
Gravy is paranoid and thinks I am up to something because I have the nerve to ask questions.

To Gravy, do you ever have a point when you post? Every time I see you post it is,"Blah blah blah twoofer, blah, fallacy blah blah strawman blah blah why don't you care? *tears*......"
You never add anything to post but flames and insults. So, as far as debate goes, you're worthless.

 

[leftysergeant]

The cloud in the Shanksville pic looks exactly like a jet fuel smoke plume to someone who ahs seen aircraft accidents in real life, or torched jet fuel and extinguished it just for drill, as I have. To a hopeless, confabulating dork like Killtown, who does not even realize that it is not possible to measure anything in the air without a know scale indicator...well...

 

[gumboot]

Line Of Sight.


Evidently you aren't a war gamer.

No, I'm not.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Norseman, those pics were later, after digging at the impact point. (Note the crater)
The video shows the area soon after the firefighters arrived. (10 min?)

And you know this because...? Fox News got to Shankesville in 10 minutes, huh? On 9/11? Right.

And I am sorry, even though the plane was traveling quickly, it still resulted in an explosion. An explosion I'll add that left no apparent trace or scorching on the ground from which it generated.

Except for all the burnt ground, of course. Which you ignore.

It seems you have to discount things no matter how you look at it.
The explosion was so powerful it sent debris miles away, yet was too weak to leave even minor blast evidence in soft soil, nor any scorching in the area of the explosion?
It is all hard to grasp.

Not if the explosion happened in the air. And I don't think anyone argues the debris that landed 2 miles away was carried there solely by the explosion.

(LOS = Line Of Sight)
Your proposed LOS does not show a split in the tree's at all.

That's because there is no split in the trees. You're imagining it, because you don't know how to interpret an image.

We will agree to disagree on the video.
Moving on.

Only if we also agree that you have no idea what you're talking about.

To anyone,
Wind reading on the plane was West? I thought it was South East?
How does the plane register wind direction? (By what method?)

Using a wind-direction-device...

Why did you think the wind was South East? It wasn't. How on earth did you get South East? It was definitely westerly. NW to W. Hence why the debris was blown towards Indian Lake and Shankesville. A SE wind would carry debris away from Indian Lake and Shankesville.

Thanks for aid in understanding the flight path. I did not want to assume what It was.

You don't need to assume. The FDR tells you. That information was offered to you some time ago. you ignored it. You do know how to read a compass, yes?

-Gumboot

 

[Gravy]

To Gravy, do you ever have a point when you post? Every time I see you post it is,"Blah blah blah twoofer, blah, fallacy blah blah strawman blah blah why don't you care? *tears*......"
You never add anything to post but flames and insults. So, as far as debate goes, you're worthless.

You're absolutely right. My posts are fact-free, answer no questions, and are useless in debate.

And you aren't a pathetic troll.

 

[gumboot]

Myriad, see that is my problem. People like to morph data to fit whatever they need it to fit.

Yes they do.

The impact caused X amount of debris to come off, but the plane went into soft ground to halt the fuel from getting all over the impact site.
That is why there was no fire around it.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

So, debris shoot through the soft ground, but not much fuel does, and the fuel that did come out did not ignite from the 'fireball' that followed impact that when you see pictures off looks nothing like jet fuel explosion.
No black smoke. The mushroom cloud looks weak.

WTF. The mushroom cloud is black. It's also quite large. Weak? Well it's smoke, after all. Smoke is not know for it's structural strength.

How can you claim the fuel did not ignite, and then in the SAME sentence talk about the mushroom cloud that was produced by the ignition of said fuel. Do you read what you write before you submit it?

And unlike Gravy, I have a point to it all. I do not understand the impact dynamics, the explosion, the mass of debris but lack of fuel and fire, the planes wind reading, the alarms that should have sounded by did not, etc, etc.
All I am trying to do is get a handle on the data.

You're not trying to get a handle on the data. You ignore it, repeatedly. When people who do understand the impact dynamics, explosion, debris, and so forth, offer you explanations you argue with them. You're no better than any other Conspiracy Theorists. your mind is made up, and you couldn't care less about the facts.

I don't think I've seen you accept a single point anyone has offered in this thread to explain your doubts.

I can't speak for the airline crash or physics or aviation experts here, but I can say that it pisses me off no end when a total layman starts claiming they have the necessary skills to do accurate photographic interpretation, and bluntly ignores corrections from someone who knows what they're talking about.

It's about time you forgot what you know (or more accurately what you think you know) and actually started paying attention to what you are being told.

-Gumboot

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Read through this post at some of the explanations people came to regarding lack of fire, etc. Gumboot.
The mushroom cloud is black, and I am that cannot interpret an image?
That cloud is not black. Not even close.
I've posted the pic in this thread already/

And the wind direction would have carried debris south east. North West blows stuff in what direction?

 

[Dog Town]

Hi D'oh...I mean Devils A! I think you have shown your club colors to overtly!
Reaction to Gravy is classic D'oh. Just wondering, but where do you reside, and are you on a proxie? If on the P, why?

DT!

 

[Gravy]

The mushroom cloud is black, and I am that cannot interpret an image?
That cloud is not black. Not even close.

Before the invention of multi-color reality, life was drab and devoid of choices.

"You can have it any color you like, as long as it's black."

 

[SpitfireIX]

LOS means Loss Of Signal to me.

Ah, yes--I might have read it that way had the context been something about Apollo.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Read through this post at some of the explanations people came to regarding lack of fire, etc. Gumboot.
The mushroom cloud is black, and I am that cannot interpret an image?
That cloud is not black. Not even close.
I've posted the pic in this thread already/

Your arguments are reminiscent of claims of photographic anomalies advanced by moon-hoax proponents. As Gravy's post above illustrates, the same object or objects can appear very different in different photographs, even those taken at the same time and from similar angles. Many factors influence how an object appears in a picture. Lighting and exposure are two of the main ones. For example, the smoke plume in the B-52 crash photo that beachnut posted a few pages ago is clearly back lit, making it appear darker when the other objects in the photo are correctly exposed. Conversely, the smoke plume in the McClatchey photo is lit from the front. She was almost due east of the crash site (090 deg.) and the photo was taken in the morning. To be precise, the sun azimuth was 117 degrees, and the altitude was 35 degrees, according to this calculator. (40 deg. 03 min. N, 78 deg 45 min W, 14:03 GMT, 11 Sept. 2001)

Other factors that could affect the appearances of the various smoke plumes are wind conditions, dispersal times (that is, how soon after the crashes each photo was taken), differences in [ETA: photographic] equipment, and whether the color balance of the prints was altered when they were made (this is a normal procedure in photography; colors don't always look "natural" when photographed).

And the wind direction would have carried debris south east. North West blows stuff in what direction?

Southeast. Wind direction is stated in terms of the bearing from which it is blowing with respect to the observer. That's why a north wind is generally cold, and a south wind is generally warm (at least in the Northern Hemisphere). Surely you're familiar with these literary allusions. Quite frankly, DA, this question does not reflect well on either your research or your critical-thinking skills, and hints at a predisposition toward mindless attempts to poke holes in the so-called official story.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Before the invention of multi-color reality, life was drab and devoid of choices.

"You can have it any color you like, as long as it's black."

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879046a08d320319a.jpg[/qimg]

Thank you. See how much easier that is that calling people names and making false statements about them? A wall of links may be useful at times, but not all the time.
Good Job.

 

[gumboot]

The mushroom cloud is black, and I am that cannot interpret an image?
That cloud is not black. Not even close.

Yes it is. It's a black cloud through UV haze, in full sunlight, on a digital camera, with blue bleed from the sky into the cloud.

North West blows stuff in what direction?

South east. Obviously. How old are you?

-Gumboot

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Your arguments are reminiscent of claims of photographic anomalies advanced by moon-hoax proponents. As Gravy's post above illustrates, the same object or objects can appear very different in different photographs, even those taken at the same time and from similar angles. Many factors influence how an object appears in a picture. Lighting and exposure are two of the main ones. For example, the smoke plume in the B-52 crash photo that beachnut posted a few pages ago is clearly back lit, making it appear darker when the other objects in the photo are correctly exposed. Conversely, the smoke plume in the McClatchey photo is lit from the front. She was almost due east of the crash site (090 deg.) and the photo was taken in the morning. To be precise, the sun azimuth was 117 degrees, and the altitude was 35 degrees, according to this calculator. (40 deg. 03 min. N, 78 deg 45 min W, 14:03 GMT, 11 Sept. 2001)

Other factors that could affect the appearances of the various smoke plumes are wind conditions, dispersal times (that is, how soon after the crashes each photo was taken), differences in equipment, and whether the color balance of the prints was altered when they were made (this is a normal procedure in photography; colors don't always look "natural" when photographed).

A good explanation. However, how do you determine what is going to make it light or darker based on how the sun is hitting it? What makes it appear darker? Sun from behind, from the front, from the side?
Brightness and contrast of the camera makes the most sense.
Thanks for all that so far.
The reason the plume gave me trouble is that I've never seen jet crash that did not have thick black smoke. Days worth of photos (hundreds) and never once was the smoke anything but black.
How that is an unreasonable question to some is beyond me.

Southeast. Wind direction is stated in terms of the bearing from which it is blowing with respect to the observer. That's why a north wind is generally cold, and a south wind is generally warm (at least in the Northern Hemisphere). Surely you're familiar with these literary allusions. Quite frankly, DA, this question does not reflect well on either your research or your critical-thinking skills, and hints at a predisposition toward mindless attempts to poke holes in the so-called official story.

Yeah, the wind was my fault. I was thinking of the direction the debris were going and not the direction the wind was coming from. Know what I mean?
I was thinking 'debris south-southwest' all day.
And you have me wrong. I am not trying to 'punch holes' into anything.
If I do not understand something, I'll say it.
People can read into motive all they want, that is not my concern.
I have stated several times I believe flight 93 crashed there. But there are things about the crash I do not understand.
Some are of the opinion that as long as you believe the plane crashed there, then that is all you need to know. Well, that is not how I work.

Things like 'at what speed and altitude did the plane roll over at?' are questions I cannot find on my own. That is why I ask the questions. Someone else may know how to read the FDR better than I can.

 

[Gravy]

Thank you.

You're welcome.

See how much easier that is that calling people names and making false statements about them? A wall of links may be useful at times, but not all the time.
Good Job.

I have two comments about this statement:

1) The post of mine we're discussing also contained CONTENT, including numerous eyewitness quotes and pertinent FDR data, that answered your questions about the fires and about the aircraft's heading. Your response was that the post was worthless. Please think about that.

2) When a post of mine contains several links, please try your best to focus on the content of the linked pages, not on the URLs. I don't post that stuff for my health.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I have two comments about this statement:
1) The post of mine we're discussing also contained CONTENT, including numerous eyewitness quotes and pertinent FDR data, that answered your questions about the fires and about the aircraft's heading. Your response was that the post was worthless. Please think about that.

My problem with witness testimony is that some of it conflicted, and in some places gives no real indication as to where the witness was. Something may say 'At Sally's beauty salon', but I do not know where that is. (Just an example)
So I wanted to get reference of the FDR itself.
The reason I want direction on the crash impact pictures was to help me understand the point of impact and the planes roll before impact.
The roll rate at 100 feet or less at 500+mph does not seem right to me. That is why I wanted to know at what altitude the aircraft rolled according to the FDR. The FDR could solve a lot of the problems with testimony. Think about it. If the plane was traveling at 230 meters per second, would it have time to roll over at 100 feet? Could the plane handle that type of roll at that speed? How long did the roll take, and what altitude did it start? etc.

 

[GregoryUrich]

There you go. Welcome Norseman

Looks like something took the tops off of 4 trees. That doesn't correlate with all the heavy debris being undergrund (with the exception of one engine).

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I would like to see the calculations DA has made to prove that all crashes no matter what should look identical. And that all crashes should produce black smoke and burn all of the surrounding areas.

If DA is going to make this claim, is it not fair to back up that claim before using is as evidence? Call me crazy for believing that there can be millions of variables in such random incidents that can all effect the outcome. What calculations were done to determine exactly how the damage should appear?

Or is this just someone who has no real knowledge at all and is just assuming how things should appear based on inexperience? DA, you keep telling us how things SHOULD be. Please explain how you know exactly how they SHOULD be. Forget all the many holes in the claims and things you completely overlook (such as claiming the debris landed seconds after the impact while COMPLETELY ignoring the speed of sound).


Also, you still refuse to list the exact debris and where it landed. I think this is the 5th time I have asked. You use it as evidence of fraud, yet you refuse to actually back up your implications with the details that are needed to make such a claim.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I would like to see the calculations DA has made to prove that all crashes no matter what should look identical. And that all crashes should produce black smoke and burn all of the surrounding areas.

If DA is going to make this claim, is it not fair to back up that claim before using is as evidence? Call me crazy for believing that there can be millions of variables in such random incidents that can all effect the outcome. What calculations were done to determine exactly how the damage should appear?

Or is this just someone who has no real knowledge at all and is just assuming how things should appear based on inexperience? DA, you keep telling us how things SHOULD be. Please explain how you know exactly how they SHOULD be. Forget all the many holes in the claims and things you completely overlook (such as claiming the debris landed seconds after the impact while COMPLETELY ignoring the speed of sound).


Also, you still refuse to list the exact debris and where it landed. I think this is the 5th time I have asked. You use it as evidence of fraud, yet you refuse to actually back up your implications with the details that are needed to make such a claim.

I really wonder if you have read what I have said. See, the problem with people like you is, you think I am up to something. You view everything as suspect and try to discredit me instead of trying to understand what I am saying.

I never made the 'claim' of the debris being this or that. That was witness testimony that I was talking about. The link has already been provided. All accounts from them state (but time changes from site to site) that within 30 seconds to two minutes (information source pending on time) debris were falling on the lake. So say two minutes. And as I said before, say 5 minutes if it makes you feel better. I wanted to get a grasp on how debris from 2 miles away got there so fast. It is not my claim. That is a question regarding testimony. Not my opinion. Which proves that either the testimony is wrong, or there are other factors yet considered.

Also, I have stated clearly that I do not understand the crash site. I never claimed I did. I stated that out of all the crash sites I have seen, none look like this one. Fire wise, damage wise, and impact wise.
That is not me saying that this crash site is fake. It just does not have the fire and damage I am used to seeing.
If you feel you are above talking about things with me, then leave or ignore me. You are here by choice.