Flight 93

[theauthor]

Link?

As you know, the search function is garbage. You know very well what you said. If I can find the post, I will post the link.

 

[gumboot]

As you know, the search function is garbage. You know very well what you said. If I can find the post, I will post the link.

Thanks.

I don't recall ever posting such a thing, but that of course doesn't mean I didn't. I'd be willing to bet if I did, it was a calculation mistake, and one I would have acknowledged and corrected when it was brought to my attention.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No, you got owned, boy. Pure and simple. You're the one who needs to go back and read through the thread and see who mentioned the 10,000 feet first. However, I don't think you're bright enough to figure it out.

Why did it take you almost 3 hours to come up with such a lame reply? Did the cats bury you again while you were playing in your sandbox?

The overwhelming ignorance in your posts show *exactly* who is the biggest idiot in the world... and the sad part is the fact that you don't even *have* to try. It comes naturally for you, doesn't it?

Take your lame 2nd grade mentality and run it on someone else who it might impress. It's sure not impressing me, or anyone else. You don't even have the ability to comprehend a simple sentence do you, boy?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Ok kiddo, keep living in your little delusion. You not understanding the context just makes it that much funnier. Keep trying to save face. No it does not matter that someone else said the plane was at 10,000 ft. YOU contradicted yourself by using it. And what's more important is that while the plane at some point was at 10,000 ft (which doesn't work for your claim) doesn't mean it was at that height the entire time. You simply didn't understand what he meant, which is pretty typical for you.

Why did it take 3 hours to reply? What are you 6 years old? Wow, gosh we're all really impressed with your 3rd grade level antics there kiddo. keep trying. I am sure all the kids on the conspiracy forums are probably deeply moved by your lack of wit. What's next? Are you going to start telling "your momma" jokes next? Perhaps some toilet humor?

Grow up kid and stop throwing these little tantrums just because you can't pull this nonsense on this forum and get away with it. Sorry your little tricks of trying to abuse eyewitness wording to completely dismiss all the evidence that you don't like.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

sorry, but when does forum posting time dicate why it took him 3 hours to reply? In that 3 hours he could have:
1) gone the beach
2) gone hunting
3) went to the movies
4) went shopping
5) went to a picnic
6) read a book
7) did some yard work
8) washed his car
9) etc etc etc

Unknowing to you, we do have lives outside of this forum and do not live by your beck and call.

And no, Johnny did not get "owned".


\

10. Spent 3 hours laughing hysterically at the post.
11. 3 hours dazed in disbelief that someone makes these arguments and IS serious.
12. Putting babies on spikes.
13. 3 hours is the default timeout waiting to be called a shill.

You're right, so many..so many...

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Thanks.

I don't recall ever posting such a thing, but that of course doesn't mean I didn't. I'd be willing to bet if I did, it was a calculation mistake, and one I would have acknowledged and corrected when it was brought to my attention.

It's always your responsibility to prove the double negative. If you don't believe in something, then its your job to find an example of that non-existent thing to prove it doesn't exist by presenting that example of the non-existent thing which you don't think exists thus proving the thing that doesn't exist in fact doesn't exist because you found the thing you don't exist and presented it.

When you find the easter bunny, I will be glad to post it for you.

And BTW, even if it was a typo or an error, it still proves that flight 93 either didn't exist or was shot down.

 

[Unchained Spirit]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Ok kiddo, keep living in your little delusion. You not understanding the context just makes it that much funnier. Keep trying to save face. No it does not matter that someone else said the plane was at 10,000 ft. YOU contradicted yourself by using it.

Are you *really* that stupid that you don't understand what questioning a statement someone else made is? Wait, you don't have to answer that... I already know the answer....

You really make yourself look dumber with each reply. You should just quit while you're only this far behind, boy.

 

[beachnut]

No, you got owned, boy. Pure and simple. You're the one who needs to go back and read through the thread and see who mentioned the 10,000 feet first. However, I don't think you're bright enough to figure it out.

Why did it take you almost 3 hours to come up with such a lame reply? Did the cats bury you again while you were playing in your sandbox?

The overwhelming ignorance in your posts show *exactly* who is the biggest idiot in the world... and the sad part is the fact that you don't even *have* to try. It comes naturally for you, doesn't it?

Take your lame 2nd grade mentality and run it on someone else who it might impress. It's sure not impressing me, or anyone else. You don't even have the ability to comprehend a simple sentence do you, boy?

Still no joy on finding that quote from Jim Stop? Have you stopped looking for the Stop quote?

So now you know 93 never flew over Indian Lake before it impacted; or you are saying the FDR is wrong, and you have no proof or idea/clue what it all means. But you sure do call people names and attack others. Cool

You have zero evidence, just made up ideas on your own from news stories, and you call other people idiots, why you express failed conclusions. It is hard to figure out what you are trying to say.

Does all this stem from your failure to find a quote to support your Jim Stop non-quote statement? What other hearsay have you built false conclusions on, and what are those conclusions?

Have you any clue on the impact kinetic energy of flight 93 (in joules, or equal TNT)?

The overwhelming ignorance in your posts show *exactly* who is the biggest idiot in the world... and the sad part is the fact that you don't even *have* to try. It comes naturally for you, doesn't it?

Oh, you fail to produce evidence so you produce this? Is this physics or math?

 

[beachnut]

Are you *really* that stupid that you don't understand what questioning a statement someone else made is? Wait, you don't have to answer that... I already know the answer....

You really make yourself look dumber with each reply. You should just quit while you're only this far behind, boy.

You may want to edit this post, as in erase it. You could use some evidence in place of the insult if you could find some. But alas, you have only hearsay. Great post. Bet you can do better if you had some real evidence instead of your own made up ideas.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Are you *really* that stupid that you don't understand what questioning a statement someone else made is? Wait, you don't have to answer that... I already know the answer....

You really make yourself look dumber with each reply. You should just quit while you're only this far behind, boy.

You're gonna need a bigger shovel. I still find it funny that you seem to think that I think YOU made the claim about it actually being 10,000 ft or that you have been making that assumption in your argument, or that we don't know you were being sarcastic in the quote to imply that you don't think the plant could have been at 10,000ft. I just don't think you're gonna get this one.

 

[Southwind17]

Please answer one question for me before we continue this any further and, as you asked me to do upthread, please be as objective & impartial as you can, ok?
How often do planes that are 2.5 kilometers (1.5 miles) away, & 10,000 feet in the air, make lights flicker and buildings shake, as reported by the marina owner and employees??

I don't know, I'm no expert, but you're forgetting one critical aspect: the plane, indeed no crashed plane, was 10,000ft high moments before it hit the ground. Get my drift?

The FDR data plots clearly show Flight 93 at around 10,000ft at 10.02, then 0ft, i.e. on the ground, one minute later at 10.03 plus a computed air speed around 500 knots and accelerating at the time of impact. Now, I've never sat inside a lightweight building structure in a quiet, rural location, such as at Indian Lake Marina, when an aircraft weighing in excess of 100,000kg having two jet engines each possibly kicking out around 40,000lb of thrust plummets into the ground less than 2.5 miles away, and I doubt you have either, so I don't know what that sounds or feels like. But I will say one thing, Doug, it doesn't, to me, seem to be beyond the realm of reasonable conception, that the building I'm in might experience a little power interruption and a degree of vibration and rattling, even before the plane hits the ground. Don't you agree?

Who's the one grasping at straws here? Have you even *read* the account of the marina owner and employees? I didn't think so, because they stated that "All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom,"
http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html

This account is wholly consistent with the, highly probable, scenario described above, derived from the FDR data plots.

Just to remind you....UA 93 wasn't travelling at 36,000mph

Correct, just a mere 500 knots, probably with engines fully throttled:

Have you even *read* the account of the marina owner and employees? I didn't think so, because they stated that "... Then we heard engines screaming close overhead.

What part of "The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom," did you NOT understand? Please tell me so I can try to put it in more simple terms for you so you can understand it. Or do ypu prefer to do your shilling blindly, oblivious to facts?

Again, this sound/eye witness account is wholly consistent with the, highly probable, scenario described above, derived from the FDR data plots.

gumboot: "Shaking buildings a couple of miles away seems thoroughly plausible."
No, you *don't* understand it perfectly. Please explain exactly *how* the building would shake BEFORE the explosion.

See above. Do you disagree with the scenario described, and that it could reasonably conceivably lead to "shaking" of the marina building before impact? If so, what is your basis for disagreeing in fact?

You mean like how you just claimed the plane was 10,000 feet in the air when it certainly was not? Or perhaps how you try to ignore that sound travels much slower than electricity? Hmmm...

As mentioned above, Flight 93 was at 10,000ft altitude within one minute of impact.

Once again, you live up to your name, oh clueless one. If you could read, you'd know it wasn't me who claimed the plane was 10,000 feet in the air

You're not disputing the FDR data plots are you, Doug?

I'm not closed-minded on the subject, I just feel a need in my mind to work out *any* discrepancy in the stories of 9-11. I think we owe it to all who lost their lives that day, and their families, to *know* the 100% absolute truth of what happened. I just feel we haven't been told the truth, the *whole* truth, and nothing *but* the truth.

Doug, any event such as this, and indeed far simpler ones, will inevitably have seeming anomalies associated with it, especially where eye/sound witnesses, who are notoriously unreliable, are involved. You cannot reasonably expect to reconcile them all, and you shouldn't assume that that is necessary to get to the truth.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

OH I see I worded one of my sentences incorrectly. But shouldn't matter because in the other posts my point was clarified.

 

[chillzero]

Keep it more civil here, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[funk de fino]

I played golf this weekend and as I hit my second shot into the 7th green it struck the OVERHEAD power lines going across the fairway and this deflected my ball into the rough to the left hand side of the fairway. The power lines in question were about 150 yards in front of me. according to the local rules of the course I was able to drop another ball and play again from the same spot and hit a glorious 3 wood onto the green to set up a eagle (or double birdie as the US say I believe)

The point here is that both my playing partners and myself describe them as OVERHEAD power lines even though they were 150 yards away and not directly over my head. Anyone who hangs their that on this use of the word overhead for Flight 93 should not be so cocky and arrogant in my opinion. Especially when he cannot even quote mr Stop as having said it and only has a newspaper quote of a hack writing it.

 

[tsig]

Please answer one question for me before we continue this any further and, as you asked me to do upthread, please be as objective & impartial as you can, ok?

How often do planes that are 2.5 kilometers (1.5 miles) away, & 10,000 feet in the air, make lights flicker and buildings shake, as reported by the marina owner and employees??

Never unless they're dropping a bomb.

 

[tsig]

Oh, how well I know that. I had a 13 year love affair with it. Been clean for almost 16 years now.



Point taken, I should have asked how long it would take to "rise". We see them immediately in the fireball explosions from the twin towers and the pentagon videos.



Thanks for the link, I'll check into it more... from what I've read, the ground at the impact crater was "soft, damp & mucky". I don't know if that's a fact though.




I see your point, and it's very plausible. I was thinking of that other poster's comparison to a 1000lb bomb.

I'm not closed-minded on the subject, I just feel a need in my mind to work out *any* discrepancy in the stories of 9-11. I think we owe it to all who lost their lives that day, and their families, to *know* the 100% absolute truth of what happened. I just feel we haven't been told the truth, the *whole* truth, and nothing *but* the truth.

Hate you tell you this but if you are looking for "the 100% absolute truth" you are in the 100% absolutely wrong place.

 

[Norseman]

What would be the impact energy of UA93 compared with a bomb detonation?

I'm just curious because I've personally been physically "pushed" by the detonation of a 1,000lb bomb at 1 mile distance, and I'm thinking UA93's impact is going to be much greater than that. Shaking buildings a couple of miles away seems thoroughly plausible.

Energy content of 1 kg of TNT = 4,184 MJ

Empty weight of a Boeing 757-200 = 57 000 kg

Remaining fuel at time of impact according to "Autopilot American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 93 Study" by NTSB = 17 500 kg.

Total weight of Flight 93 at time of impact, aircraft and fuel only: 74 500 kg.

Speed of Flight 93 at time of impact according to "Flight Path Study United Airlines Flight 93" by NTSB = 490 knots = 252 m/s.

Kinetic energy of Flight 93 = 1/2 m*v*v = 2 365,524 MJ

That is equal to the energy content of 565 kg of TNT. That gives us a ballpark figure of 1246 lb of TNT.

Note that a bomb detonating on the surface would blast away at least half of its energy into the air. While all the kinetic energy of Flight 93 moved in the same direction towards the ground, but a part of the kinetic energy of Flight 93 would go into shredding the aircraft to tiny bits and pieces.

Anyhow we are talking about a tremendous amount of destructive force delivered during a very short time in both cases.

 

[Southwind17]

Total weight of Flight 93 at time of impact, aircraft and fuel only: 74 500 kg.

Speed of Flight 93 at time of impact according to "Flight Path Study United Airlines Flight 93" by NTSB = 490 knots = 252 m/s.

Kinetic energy of Flight 93 = 1/2 m*v*v = 2 365,524 MJ

That is equal to the energy content of 565 kg of TNT. That gives us a ballpark figure of 1246 lb of TNT.

What about the crew, passengers, luggage, cargo, etc.? Sorry, just being pedantic. You've made your point, and very well too.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Just to remind you....UA 93 wasn't travelling at 36,000mph

Well aside from the magnitude differences between 800 ft per second and 36,000 mph... a 100 ton pay-load hitting the ground at the speed of a small caliber bullet might just hit the ground with the force of a few hundred tons of TNT

**Snort**
Do fireball mushrooms travel slower, too?

uh... what? Either the shock waves from the impact of the plane on the ground OR the sound waves could cause vibrations. Need I remind you at a certain point sound is capable of causing significant vibration...

How long would it take these shockwaves to travel the distance to the marina?

Variable upon the composition of the ground...

wouldn't shock waves felt 2.5 miles away kind of... oh, I don't know,... *level* buildings/houses closest to the impact?

Would be an assumption... intensity of the shockwave not only depends on the power of it initially upon the impact, but as well as whether as how much of that energy dissipates in the ground

 

[Norseman]

What about the crew, passengers, luggage, cargo, etc.? Sorry, just being pedantic. You've made your point, and very well too.

I couldn't bring myself to post figures turning the victims of Flight 93 into TNT equivalents. There were 44 persons on board including the four al-Qaeda hijackers. In addition the aircraft also carried a unknown amount of mail.

 

[Southwind17]

So, are we to assume that both Unchained Spirit and theauthor have scuttled off with their tails between their legs, not having the courage even to acknowledge that they've been presented with arguments that convincingly invalidate, if not disprove, their notions of "disinformation", if not an inside job? I note they've both elected to take their posts elsewhere in the Forum, so they're still peddling their wares, so to speak.

Or was it the warnings from Chillzero that sent them scurrying, realizing that posts without insults were of little or no value to them?