Why Flight 93?

[Gravy]

Gravy, by aerial photos taken before 9/11 are you referring to the b&W USGS photo taken when they were working on reclaiming the mine. I have spent a lot of time on Google trying to find photos taken before 9/11?

No, these were commercial mapping photos. I forget which service I used. You can try Terraserver and GoogleEarth. I also pulled up a topo map which showed more detail. This was a while ago when I was discussing the same issue.

I can't figure out why you think those aren't wingprints. Every single photo I've seen tells me they are. Charred earth from the wing tanks tells me they are. Impressions from the engines tell me they are. The tapering of the crater in width and depth on both sides, where the lighter outboard wing sections would be, tell me they are.

Where else would the wingprints be?

 

[T.A.M.]

Oh No Gregory, you are a full blown truther. A drank the Kool-Aid, no conclusion, no fact, 9/11 truth movement follower. You lack the capability to let your engineering training come through, maybe you had too many software engineering courses (that is a joke, sorry) and your music degree messes up your analytical abilities (another joke, you must just be too challenged to be logical) to see how real world systems work. I am not sure but once you become a member of some cult, you are lost. Sorry to see you on the dark side, but one day maybe you will join those who can think rationally and become an individual again. It seems like you have become part of the Borg like 9/11 movement. No facts, no evidence and no idea/clue what happen on 9/11.

A full blown Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice Members, one of the loyal thermite specials, the people who made their own journal cause no real journal would publish their junk!. I and 99.9 percent of all engineers in the world see your group as the opposite of Scholarly and have to label you as nut cases or just weird guys who make up misinformation on 9/11. Good job, you have joined a unique group of people who are so messed up on 9/11 they are unable to get one thing right about 9/11. Why?

We can speak freely here...please, don't hold back...lol

TAM

 

[GregoryUrich]

Earth paging Gregory:

1) In what direction did most of the blast, fuel, and debris travel?

2) What does that tell you?

Google earth paging Gravy.

It appears from the photos that the most fuel and debris went directly south. There are no photos of the blast.

This tells me that the direction of plowing (most obious evidence of velocity vector) did not coincide with the heading from the FDR or the debris distribution.

 

[Norseman]

Google earth paging Gravy.

It appears from the photos that the most fuel and debris went directly south. There are no photos of the blast.

This tells me that the direction of plowing (most obious evidence of velocity vector) did not coincide with the heading from the FDR or the debris distribution.

GregoryUrich, for instance local variations in the compactness and consistence of the mass in the ground could cause the impact to build up more earth on one side of the crater than other sides, this without changing the main direction of the debris. There are to many unknown factors in this chaotic event.

 

[MaGZ]

For your consideration...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x23179

 

[DGM]

For your consideration...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x23179

How does any of this effect the overwhelming physical evidence at the site?

 

[beachnut]

Google earth paging Gravy.

It appears from the photos that the most fuel and debris went directly south. There are no photos of the blast.

This tells me that the direction of plowing (most obious evidence of velocity vector) did not coincide with the heading from the FDR or the debris distribution.

But the plane was headed south. What are you talking about?

So, the plane was heading south. Any heading below 90 and 270 is south. What next? What does a rotation body do when it hits the ground? The plane a rolling moment. The moment can be calculated. I wonder if the engine that left the scene was due to the rolling moment?

How are the member benefits from the Scholars. Is it neat to possible publish a paper in the woo journal of Jones? Must be the biggest let down to be in a group of tin foil hat fool who make up stuff about 9/11. You do know that Jones just made up the thermite out of thin air. So when will your research yield some conclusion?

So what is the next anomaly at the impact of 93, which does not really have one. So when can we have your next invented anomaly?

 

[Gravy]

So what is the next anomaly at the impact of 93, which does not really have one. So when can we have your next invented anomaly?

This is the key. A great example of how to perpetuate a conspiracy theory. Gregory says he's investigating. He isn't. He's doing the typical truther dance of ignoring all evidence that doesn't fit what he want the outcome to be. And he's chosen to "investigate" an "anomaly" which he is entirely unprepared to discuss in an informed manner. This ridiculous "wings on the wrong side" claim would only be promoted by someone who does not believe that flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. It's the equivalent of there being many witnesses to a shooting, and the police arrive at the scene to see the killer standing over the body, and they choose to focus their investigation on the characteristics of the wisps of smoke coming from the barrel of the gun.

So, Gregory: taking into account all the evidence, did flight 93 crash in Pennsylvania after passengers tried to storm the cockpit?

Isn't that what matters?

 

[T.A.M.]

This is the key. A great example of how to perpetuate a conspiracy theory. Gregory says he's investigating. He isn't. He's doing the typical truther dance of ignoring all evidence that doesn't fit what he want the outcome to be. And he's chosen to "investigate" an "anomaly" which he is entirely unprepared to discuss in an informed manner. This ridiculous "wings on the wrong side" claim would only be promoted by someone who does not believe that flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. It's the equivalent of there being many witnesses to a shooting, and the police arrive at the scene to see the killer standing over the body, and they choose to focus their investigation on the characteristics of the wisps of smoke coming from the barrel of the gun.

So, Gregory: taking into account all the evidence, did flight 93 crash in Pennsylvania after passengers tried to storm the cockpit?

Isn't that what matters?

Gregory hasn't made any firm decision on how he feels about that...I know, he has told me two or three times, when I have asked for what he believes on the matter.

TAM

 

[GregoryUrich]

Chaos my bootie

You guys want to ignore the direction of plowing go ahead. Basic physics dictates that the most plowing must be in the direction of most of the momentum.

You guts want to ignore the wing imprint being in the wrong place go ahead. The imprint is symmetrical which is indicative of a lack of chaos in the initial impact. Ignore that too.

Some more pics:

I will not be badgered into forming a conclusion about this until I have more thoroughly investigated it. How long that takes is none of your concern.

 

[Gravy]

I will not be badgered into forming a conclusion about this until I have more thoroughly investigated it. How long that takes is none of your concern.

"Chaos my bootie" is one of my favorite P-Funk songs.

Good luck answering the incredibly difficult question of whether flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, Gregory. Sorry to have so severely wracked your ratiocinating faculties.

Hey, I know: maybe you can ask the "Scholars!"

 

[Norseman]

GregoryUrich, like you I have been a little bit confused in my mind about how the crash site looked compared with the FDR data. But my confusion have been strictly limited to just understanding in my mind how the aircraft was oriented in the air relative to the ground before impact, because I have never had any reason to doubt the fact that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville.

To night the last pieces finally fell in place in my head, and any confusion is gone. I ended up doing a simple "map exercise" with some printouts of the crash site, google earth and a toy airplane that was quiet revealing. You can even measure the roll angle of the aircraft from the impact crater.

In this case terrain (crater) and map (FDR and mind) lines up perfectly. And if it did not it would be only attributable to a miss interpretation of data and terrain in mind, or data not written to FDR before impact. Terrain is always right. GregoryUrich the evidence, both physical and witnesses, is beyond overwhelming in favor of the fact that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville regardless of our understanding of the physics of the crash.

Gravy and beachnut, let my earlier post stand as an embarrassing monument of my understanding of the looks of the impact crater.

 

[Norseman]

No, these were commercial mapping photos. I forget which service I used. You can try Terraserver and GoogleEarth. I also pulled up a topo map which showed more detail. This was a while ago when I was discussing the same issue.

I looked at both. Terraserver uses the b&w 1994 photo. While GoogleEarth and Yahoo! Maps today have updated photos from after 9/11 that shows a restored crash site where the damaged and burnt trees have been removed. Just for info.

 

[rwguinn]

GregoryUrich, like you I have been a little bit confused in my mind about how the crash site looked compared with the FDR data. But my confusion have been strictly limited to just understanding in my mind how the aircraft was oriented in the air relative to the ground before impact, because I have never had any reason to doubt the fact that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville.

To night the last pieces finally fell in place in my head, and any confusion is gone. I ended up doing a simple "map exercise" with some printouts of the crash site, google earth and a toy airplane that was quiet revealing. You can even measure the roll angle of the aircraft from the impact crater.

In this case terrain (crater) and map (FDR and mind) lines up perfectly. And if it did not it would be only attributable to a miss interpretation of data and terrain in mind, or data not written to FDR before impact. Terrain is always right. GregoryUrich the evidence, both physical and witnesses, is beyond overwhelming in favor of the fact that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville regardless of our understanding of the physics of the crash.

Gravy and beachnut, let my earlier post stand as an embarrassing monument of my understanding of the looks of the impact crater.

What Gregoryurich apparently can't get into his head is the fact that the aircraft was headed south, in a 30 degree inverted bank (180-150=30).
Is anyone surprised that one wing hit first, and that the imprint does not look like a wings-level crash site? Now, in case you didn't realize just how radical 30 degrees actually is, the fuselage was still 1/4 wingspan (1/2 of one wing) above the ground when the wing hit the ground. That throws some tremendous forces into various parts not made to handle that kind of load, and things broke. Rapidly, catastrophically.
All the fireball, fuel and debris kept going south. Just as anyone with a minimum amount of physics knowledge would expect.

 

[Norseman]

...................
In the attachment below you can see what the base of the alleged wing imprint in the upper part of the video frame looks like in a close up. What you think look like a wing looks to me more like the part of a drainage ditch. Compare the area marked by a 1 with the crater in the background in the picture. The ground around the 1 is old history, the work of repeated cycles of rain and sun, it is not a fresh impact crater, all the features are smoothed, .............

My conclusion after considering this for some days, after it struck me when I looked at the photo attached below, is that the aircraft hit a drainage ditch/pond..........................

In light of my earlier post today, I would like to clarify a couple of things here.

What you see around the 1 in the photo I attached to the quoted post, is most likely the result of water used by the fire fighters to put out spot fires, combined with investigators walking around the main crater. Originally I thought the photo had been taken on 9/11, but I now think 9/12 is the right date in light of other information, as a consequence more smoothing due to walking in the area marked by 1.

Yes, I now definitely consider this to be a wing impact crater. Just to clear things up.

 

[GregoryUrich]

What Gregoryurich apparently can't get into his head is the fact that the aircraft was headed south, in a 30 degree inverted bank (180-150=30).
Is anyone surprised that one wing hit first, and that the imprint does not look like a wings-level crash site? Now, in case you didn't realize just how radical 30 degrees actually is, the fuselage was still 1/4 wingspan (1/2 of one wing) above the ground when the wing hit the ground. That throws some tremendous forces into various parts not made to handle that kind of load, and things broke. Rapidly, catastrophically.
All the fireball, fuel and debris kept going south. Just as anyone with a minimum amount of physics knowledge would expect.

...causing a rather symmetrical crater (consistent with an inverted high wing aircraft) and plowing in the direction of 30 degrees east from south. No.

Luckily I have more than a minimum amount of physics knowledge which helps me to avoid such mistakes.

 

[uk_dave]

I just don't get this issue.

Some people think the shanksville crash site is wrong given the claimed position, speed etc of the plane.

So, what does this all mean?

As far as I can see it has to mean either:

1. The person making the claim is mistaken

2. The crash site was faked, but the fakers did a poor job

3. The plane was not performing the dive which has been claimed for it, therefore the flight data is faked (for what reason?)

4. The person making the claim is mistaken.

Any other possibilities?

 

[Corsair 115]

...causing a rather symmetrical crater (consistent with an inverted high wing aircraft) and plowing in the direction of 30 degrees east from south. No.

Luckily I have more than a minimum amount of physics knowledge which helps me to avoid such mistakes.

Tell you what, why don't you whip up a little drawing of what you think the aircraft's orientation was at the moment of impact. Be sure to include the 40° pitch down, 150° right roll, and -20° angle of attack. Then we can see if your interpretation of what those numbers mean to the orientation of an aircraft are correct or not.

 

[Gravy]

Tell you what, why don't you whip up a little drawing of what you think the aircraft's orientation was at the moment of impact. Be sure to include the 40° pitch down, 150° right roll, and -20° angle of attack. Then we can see if your interpretation of what those numbers mean to the orientation of an aircraft are correct or not.

I'm pretty sure this is Gregory's work:

 

[Slayhamlet]

I just don't get this issue.

Some people think the shanksville crash site is wrong given the claimed position, speed etc of the plane.

So, what does this all mean?

As far as I can see it has to mean either:

1. The person making the claim is mistaken

2. The crash site was faked, but the fakers did a poor job

3. The plane was not performing the dive which has been claimed for it, therefore the flight data is faked (for what reason?)

4. The person making the claim is mistaken.

Any other possibilities?

5. The person making the claim is mistaken.